NYU IFA LIBRARY
3 1162 04538830 4
■' ' v\ ' M
I V,
':^
Cd'^^^y^ MuoCti^^^y"
''AURlATr^^
The Problem of
the Obelisks
Fig. I.— obelisks OF TUTHMOSIS I (left) AND HATSHEPSOWET {right) AT KARNAK.
(The nearei obelisk leans to the left owing to soil-subsidence.)
[Frontispiece.
THE PROBLEM
OF THE OBELISKS
FROM A STUDY OF THE UNFINISHED
OBELISK AT ASWAN
BY
R.JENGELBACH
Assoc. C. & G. Inst.
Qhief IntftctOT of Antiquities^ Upper Egypt (Author of RiQQtH, 1915
Ths Aswan Obelisk, 1922 ; Haragkh, igi^f etc.J
ILLUSTRATED
T. FISHER UNWIN, LIMITED
LONDON ADELPHI TERRACE
RneArfc
•02
First publish fd in 1923
(all RICHTl RISKRVID)
PREFACE
THIS book has been written, not only to
give the general reader the results of the
latest researches on the ages-old problem
as to how the obelisks were extracted and erected
THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
R. Engelbach
ERRATA
Page 19, last line, for " Ramose " read " Seti I."
,, 48, lines 13, 20, and 22, for " 3'i5 inches" read
" 315 inch."
,, 60, line 5, for " rollers " read " baulks."
„ 70, lines 15 and 17. for ^-„Vt read ^i^.
quarry in 1921 ana 1922 nave aireaay oeen
published by the Antiquities Department, under
the title of The Aswan Obelisk, with some remarks
on the Ancient Engineering, of which this is
practically a popular edition. It has been
entirely re-written and re-arranged, omitting
the rather elaborate calculations on stresses
and leverages which are given at length in the
official volume, but giving in far greater detail
7
'02
(all rights RtSSRVIo)
PREFACE
THIS book has been written, not only to
give the general reader the results of the
latest researches on the ages- old problem
as to how the obelisks were extracted and erected
in ancient times, but also to furnish visitors to
Aswan with a full description of the huge
unfinished obelisk lying in the quarries a short
distance from the Cataract Hotel, which has
thrown a great deal of light on the ancient
methods. I have included in it, for comparison,
brief accounts of the removal and re-erection in
modern times of the Vatican, Paris, London and
New York obelisks. No detailed account of the
Aswan Obelisk has yet appeared in any guide-
book.
The results of my clearance of the obelisk
quarry in 1921 and 1922 have already been
published by the Antiquities Department, under
the title of The Aswan Obelisk, with some remarks
on the Ancient Engineering, of which this is
practically a popular edition. It has been
entirely re-written and re-arranged, omitting
the rather elaborate calculations on stresses
and leverages which are given at length in the
official volume, but giving in far greater detail
7
8 PREFACE
the results of my experiments with the scale
model shown in figs. 27-33, which Mr. Donaldson,
of the Egyptian State Railways, kindly made to
my design. No photographs of this model
have been hitherto published.
Although more than a year has elapsed since
sending the manuscript of The Aswan Obelisk
to press, I have not had to modify my views on
the ancient methods in any point of importance ;
further study of the quarry has, however,
induced me to omit the alternative suggestion
on the manner in which the obelisk was rolled
clear of the quarry (page 53) and to assert,
with some confidence, that sleds were an essential
in the transport of all large obelisks.
To the reader who may charge me with
expending so much space on such a restricted
subject as that of the making of obelisks, I
would recall the deathbed answer of the old
professor to his friends, who had asked him if
he did not think he had wasted his life by devot-
ing it exclusively to the study of Greek preposi-
tions. He repUed : " It is true ; I should
have confined myself to those governing the
Dative ! " Like him, I feel that I have unduly
digressed in Chapter VIII, when so much remains
to be discussed on the mechanical side.
In explaining the various processes, I have
tried to indicate clearly where fact ends and
deduction begins, and frankly to admit — as in
PREFACE 9
the case of the details of the transport barges —
where there is not sufficient evidence on which
to speculate, or when any stage of the mechanical
history of the obelisk is not clear to me.
There is an increasing demand, among the
10,000 visitors who come to Egypt each year,
for facts about the arts, crafts, engineering and
practical life of the Egyptians ; in other words,
for a compact account of what is known on a
subject that interests them; and there is a
corresponding and natural dislike to descriptions
of the never-ending scenes of gods and kings,
which, after all, convey very little information
even to the archaeologist. There is a surprising
difference between the taste of the average
visitor now and that of fifteen years ago. Then
the chief point of remark about the tourist was
his Baedeker and his boredom ; now Breasted's
Ancient Records and the latest archaeological
works are constantly seen in his hands, in addi-
tion to that excellent guide-book.
In the following pages I have been occasionally
guilty of levity. My defence is that it is as a
sort of protest against a habit — so dear to the
dilettanti in Egyptian lore — of never speaking
of anything " Ancient Egyptian " except in
sepulchral tones and with bated breath, lest
a curse fall upon them ! As a matter of fact the
Egyptian, apart from his religion, was essentially
a practical man, and by no means opposed to
10 PREFACE
a little levity ; one has only to read the text
accompanying some of the banqueting scenes
in the tombs — such as that of Paheri at El-Kab
— to be convinced of this. Further, this book
deals with work, and lacks the " romance "
popularly associated with the gods, graves and
ghosts of ancient Egypt. I have only dipped
into the graveyard for purely secular information,
such as the careers of the ancient architects.
My feeble attempts to brighten up a rather
*' tough '* subject may therefore be pardoned,
if not approved.
On the subject of the transcription of Egyptian
names, a word of explanation may not be out
of place. I am constantly asked, *' Which
should it be : Tuthmosis, Thothmes, Tahutimes,
Dhutmose, Tuthmose or Thutmosis ? " or : " Was
the Queen called Hatshepsut, Hatshepsowet,
Hatshepsuit, Hatshopsitou or Hatasoo ? " The
reason for these variants is that the Egyptians
wrote their names in consonants only, except —
apparently under protest — when they indicated
the presence of an initial vowel or final i. The
system adopted here is practically that given
by Dr. Alan Gardiner in his Topographical
Catalogue of the Private Tombs of Thebes, and that
is an attempt to reconstruct the names, following
the latest researches in the ancient vocalisation.
In the case of kings, where the Greek or
Manethonian form is well known and appears
PREFACE II
to be close to the probable articulation, it has
been retained. Thus we say Hatshepsowet,
Dhuthotpe and Sennemut, but Tuthmosis, Ame-
nophis and Ramesses. This system is being
adopted by the Survey of Egypt for their future
publications. The variants given in Appendix II
will, I hope, clear up all the reader's difficulties
in this respect.
In collecting the history of the obelisks and
their architects for Chapter VIII, I am greatly
indebted to Prof. J. H. Breasted's invaluable
Ancient Records, which give, in a handy form,
translations of every historical document in
Egypt. Though in most cases the translations
given in that chapter are based on Prof. Breasted's
work, I have occasionally sacrificed his strictly
literal translation in order to give the reader a
freer rendering.
My thanks are due to the Antiquities Depart-
ment of the Egyptian Government for permission
to reproduce from The Aswan Obelisk figures 5-1 1,
13-20, 22, 25, 26, 34-36 ; to Messrs. Macmillan
and Co. for the loan of the blocks for figures 21,
23 and 24 ; and to Messrs. Harmsworths, Ltd.,
for permission to reproduce the photographs on
figures I, 2 and 38-40 from my article on obelisks
in Wonders of the Past. Photos 3, 4 and 18
were taken by Mr. A. M. MacGillivray, of Aswan ;
I, 2, 38-40 by Gaddis and Self, Luxor ; the
remainder are mine.
CONTENTS
Page
Preface 7
CHAPTER I
Obelisks and Quarries .... 17
CHAPTER II
Description of the Aswan Obelisk . . 25
CHAPTER HI
Setting Out an Obelisk .... 32
CHAPTER IV
Extraction of an Obelisk ... 41
CHAPTER V
Transport of an Obelisk .... 52
CHAPTER VI
Erection of Obelisks 66
CHAPTER VII
Some Ancient Records .... 85
CHAPTER VIII
A History of Certain Obelisks and Their
Architects 92
13
14 CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER IX
Removals of Obelisks in Modern Times . 114
APPENDIX I
Dates of Egyptian Kings Mentioned in
THE Volume 123
APPENDIX II
Vocalisations of Egyptian Words . . 125
Index 128
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
No. of
Fig. Page
1. Obelisks of Tuthmosis I (left) and Hatshep-
s6wet (right) at Karnak . {Frontispiece)
2. Obelisk of Senusret I at Mataria, near Cairo . i8
3. Aswan Obelisk from the east ... 26
4. Aswan Obelisk from the west . . . 26
5. Hammer-dressing on pyramidion of Aswan
Obelisk ....... 28
6. Outline of scheme for reducing size of Aswan
Obelisk ....... 28
7. Plan and sections of Aswan Obelisk to a scale
of 1/200 ...... ^ 38
8. Wedge and chisel marks near Aswan Obelisk 42
9. Rough chisel-dressing on unfinished sarcophagi
known as " El-Hamm3,mmat," near Aswan 42
10. Black granite hammer from Gizeh . . 42
11. Interior of separating- trench round Aswan
Obelisk ....... 42
12. View of trench round Aswan Obelisk when
standing within it .... . 42
13. Measuring-Hnes on upper quarry-face, Aswan
ObeUsk .....,, 44
14-17. Traces of inscriptions on upper quarry-face . 46
18. View of Aswan ObeUsk from the north . . 50
19. Bed from which a small monument, probably
an obelisk, has been removed ... 50
20. ObeUsk of Hatshepsowet, mounted on a sled,
from her sculptures at Der El-Bahari . . 57
21. Transport of the statue of Dhuthotpe, from
his tomb at El-Bersheh .... 59
22. Sketch-plan of the neighbourhood of obelisk
quarry, Aswan ..... 60
23. Cargo-boat, New Kingdom .... 61
24. Boat of Queen Hatshepsowet, from the Punt
reliefs at Der El-Bahari .... 62
25. Position of base of Hatsheps6 wet's obelisk on
its pedestal ...... 68
26. Gigantic embankment for transporting stone,
Aswan .......
70
15
i6 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
No. of
Fig. Page
27. Sectional model of an embankment, to show
method of erecting obelisks ... 70
28. ObeUsk at the top of the slope, overhanging
the sand-funnel ..... 70
29. Sled half removed ..... 70
30. ObeUsk engaging in the sand ; all the lashings
are released ...... 72
31. Obelisk half-way down the funnel . . 72
32. Obelisk at rest at the bottom of the funnel,
its edge engaging in the notch of the pedestal 72
33. ObeUsk after it has been pulled upright . 72
34. Choisy's suggestion for raising obeUsks . 77
35. Choisy's theory on the erection of obeUsks . 78
36. „ ., ,. .. „ 78
37. Statue of Sennemut, architect of Hatshepso-
wet's obelisks, holding her daughter Nef rurS,
to whom he was tutor .... 100
38. King Tuthmosis III presents obelisks, flag-
staves and booty from Palestine to the god
Amen-Re, Karnak ..... 108
39. Obelisk of Ramesses II, Temple of Luxor.
Its fellow is now at the Place de la Concorde,
Paris ..... . . 112
40. Contemporary sculpture of Pylon of Ramesses
II in the Temple of Luxor, showing obelisks,
flagstaves and colossi . . . . 112
41. Model showing how the Paris Obelisk was
lowered and erected . . . . 116
42. Model to show how the lowering and the raising
of the New York Obelisk were performed. 116
43. Lowering of the New York ObeUsk. Towers
and trunnions about to be removed . 118
44. Lowering of the New York ObeUsk. Removing
the wooden baulks from each end alternately 118
THE PROBLEM OF THE
OBELISKS
CHAPTER I
OBELISKS AND QUARRIES
OBELISKS have always held a great
attraction for visitors to Egypt through-
out the ages. From the time of Assur-
banipal II onwards nearly every foreign con-
troller of Egypt has removed one or more as a
souvenir. Though there must have been several
score of large obelisks in the country — Karnak
alone had at least thirteen — there now remain
but five standing. Earthquakes, soil-subsidence
and the foreigner have indeed taken a toll.
Though records of obelisks extend back into
the Old Kingdom, and fragments of them have
been discovered, the earliest complete example
is that of King Senusret I of the Xllth dynasty
at El-Mataria, near Cairo, shown in fig. 2. The
others are those of Tuthmosis I, Queen Hatshep-
sowet and Seti II at Karnak, and the obelisk
in front of Luxor temple dating to the reign of
Ramesses II. Of these, that of Tuthmosis I
(frontispiece) is in a rather dangerous condition
owing to the settling of its pedestal, and that of
2 17
i8 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
Seti II is only a miniature obelisk of gritstone,
of which there must have been hundreds in the
country. Against this Rome has nine over
20 feet high, while Constantinople, Paris, London
and New York all have one large obelisk, not to
mention several small ones in museums, private
collections and gardens.
In ancient times there must have been a
great number of large obelisks in Egypt. Seti I
tells us that he " filled Hehopolis with obelisks,"
and Ramesses II is known to have had fourteen
in Tanis alone, though whether he erected them
or merely usurped them, according to his habit,
is uncertain. Besides the temples of the great
centres such as Karnak and Luxor, Heliopolis
and Tanis, many of the temples in other places
must have had them. We have actual records of
obelisks at Philse, Elephantine, Soleb (in Nubia),
the mortuary temple of Amenophis III behind
the Colossi of Thebes, and elsewhere. The
total number of obelisks exceeding 30 feet in
length must have been well over fifty.
The origin and religious significance of the
obelisk are somewhat obscure. In the royal
sanctuaries of the fifth d3niasty kings on the
margin of the western desert at Abusir, not far
from the Pyramids of Gizeh, the obelisk took
the place of the holy of holies of the later
temples. Recent excavations have shown that
these obelisks were very different from those
now familiar to visitors, as the length of the
base was fully one-third that of the shaft,
which was of masonry and merely served the
Fig. 2.— obelisk OF SENUSRET I AT MATARIA, NEAR CAIRO.
(Pages 17, 30 and iii.)
18]
OBELISKS AND QUARRIES 19
purpose of elevating the sacred pyramid or
henhenif), as the Egyptians called it — the real
emblem of the sun. The obelisks of Upper
Egypt, on the other hand, had no very definite
connection with sun-worship, their only function
being an additional decoration to the pylons,
though it is known that they were greatly
venerated and offerings were made to them.
They were erected in pairs, and when Tuthmosis
III (p. 109) put up a single one at Kamak, he
says that it was the first time that this had been
done. Until we know how early obelisks were
placed before the pylons of Upper Egypt, it is
rather difficult to say whether they were de-
veloped from the fifth dynasty sun-obelisks or
independently, particularly when one realises
that, if a high, thin stone monument is desired,
the obelisk is the only practical form which
is pleasing to the eye and convenient for inscrib-
ing. In any case, the subject is really outside
the scope of this book, which deals rather with
the mechanical side of obelisk-lore. A discussion
of the obelisk as a sun-emblem pure and simple
is given in Prof. J. H. Breasted's Development
of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt
(Hodder and Stoughton) on pages 11, 15 and 71.
The cLTtistic taste of the ancient Egyptian
differed considerably from ours and, to our
minds, he was in the habit of decorating objects
which do not need any decoration whatever.
He had — like the modern Egyptian — a perfect
mania for painting and gilding everything. In
the tomb of Ramose at Thebes (No. 55) he has
20 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
painted in gaudy colours the most wonderfully
detailed reliefs, and we know for certain that he
overlaid the huge fir-trees, which formed the
pylon fiagstaves, with bands and tips of electrum
or copper. Obelisks did not escape this craze,
and as far back as our records go they were
capped with electrum, copper or gold. The
Arab historian 'Abd El-Latif, writing as late as
I20I A.D., states that the two Heliopolis (Mataria)
obelisks still retained their copper caps, and that
around them were other obelisks large and small,
too numerous to mention (see page iii). Now
only one remains.
The unfinished obelisk of Aswan, though its
existence has been known for centuries, was
never cleared until the end of the winter of 1922,
when my Department granted me L.E. 75 to do
so. In this work I was assisted by Mahmud Eff.
Mohammad and Mustafa Eff. Hasan of the
Antiquities Department, who supervised the
workmen.
Before the clearance, all the visitor could see
of the obelisk was the top surface of the pyra-
midion and about 20 yards of shaft, which sloped
down into a vast heap of sand, chips and granite
boulders. It has now become one of the most
visited sights in Aswan, since nothing of its kind
is to be seen elsewhere.
Most persons, having seen the temples and
tombs of Egypt, become more or less blase to
them. This is largely due to the fact that no-
one — least of all the dragomans — brings home
to them the enormous difficulties the Egyptians
OBELISKS AND QUARRIES 21
overcame. They dismiss them as beyond their
understanding, and many closer students of the
monuments than the average visitor have boldly
affirmed that the Egyptians knew engines and
forces of nature of which we are to-day ignorant.
This is quite a wrong idea ; it is, as a matter of
fact, far easier to explain every step in the
mechanics of a large obelisk to the non-technical
reader than those of an iron bridge. Though
modern research robs the Egyptians of the
magical powers attributed to them, it makes
them more admirable in the eyes of the practical
man, as it shows that they could do, with the
most primitive tools, feats of engineering which
we, with some 3,000 years of mechanical progress
behind us, are barely able to copy.
A study of the Aswan Obelisk enables the
visitor to look with different eyes on the finished
monuments, and to realise, not only the immense
labour expended in transporting the giant
blocks and the years of tedious extraction of
stone in the quarries, but the heartbreaking
failures which must sometimes have driven the
old engineers to the verge of despair before a
perfect monument could be presented by the
king to his god. Nowadays, if anything gets
out of position, a jack, a winch or a crane is
called for, and the trouble is soon put right ;
in ancient times a colossus or an obelisk which
came down badly on to its pedestal was some-
thing in the nature of a tragedy. A perfect
monument teaches us httle of their engineering ;
an imperfect or unfinished piece of work may
22 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
teach us much. Thus the obelisk of Hatshepsd-
wet at Karnak, standing askew on its pedestal,
which must have been a perpetual sore point to
Sennemut, its engineer, is useful to us, as it
enables us at once to rule out the levering-up
theories put forward by Gorringe and others
who have written on the subject (page 67).
The Aswan Obelisk is a piece of work that
failed, not through any fault of the workers, but
owing to an unexpected fissure in the rock. It
must have been galling beyond words to the
Egyptians to abandon it after all the time and
trouble they had expended, but to-day we are
grateful for their failure, as it teaches us more
about their methods than any other monument
in Egypt.
The great quarries of Aswan and Silsileh are
quite untouched as regards excavation, which
is one of the reasons why our knowledge on the
extraction of stone is so very unsatisfactory.
In spite of this there is quite a considerable
literature on the subject, mostly done either by
engineers (on a brief visit) with no knowledge of
archaeology to enable them to control their
assertions, or by archaeologists to whom engineer-
ing is a sealed mystery. While the publication
of a new grammatical form or historical point
wiU evoke a perfect frenzy of contradiction
in the little world of Egyptology, the most absurd
statements on a mechanical problem will be left
unquestioned, and, what is worse, accepted.
In most branches of modern archaeology the
alleged savant must work in conjunction with
OBELISKS AND QUARRIES 23
the specialist, and the specialist needed for the
subject under discussion is the foreman quarry-
man. This was brought home to me with great
force when I was at work on the obelisk, and I
shall never forget the ease nor the contempt
with which an old Italian quarryman disproved
some of my then most cherished theories. His
range of knowledge may have been limited, but
it was painfully accurate.
A walk round the quarries between the railway
and the Reservoir road at Aswan well repays the
trouble. Here we may see gigantic embank-
ments, some nearly half a mile in length, on which
the great blocks were transported from the high
desert down to the Nile ; we can see half-
finished sarcophagi (fig. 9, page 42) and statues,
abandoned no one knows why, in various stages
of completion ; we can see inscriptions, some
readable and some not, painted or cut on the
boulders by the ancient engineers, and every-
where we may see the marks of their wedges,
some showing where a block has been removed,
others where the wedge has failed to act, or has
split the rock in the wrong direction. The site
clamours for excavation, which might well reveal
chippings from the chisels used in cutting the
granite, and thus settle, once and for all, whether
they were of highly tempered copper or not ;
another abandoned monument might give us
conclusive information as to the methods by
which they were detached from below, and how
it was intended to roll them out from their beds.
Excavation might well furnish us with ancient
24 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
levers and rollers — or traces of them — which are
hardly known at present, and then only of small
size. A big quarry has never been cleared,
and we cannot believe that the small area
excavated round the obelisk has revealed all
the secrets. The explanation of the neglect
of the quarries is that they are not likely to
afford good museum-pieces.
With an expenditure of L.E. 500 a really
comprehensive study of quarrying could be
made, which would surely add greatly to our
present knowledge.
CHAPTER II
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASWAN OBELISK
THE obelisk lies in a quarry on the south-
east side of the mediaeval Arab cemetery,
being about a quarter of an hour's drive
from the Cataract Hotel. The best time for
visiting it is either early in the morning or just
before sunset, as it is at these times that the
guide-lines on the upper surface of the obelisk
and the curious structure of the trench surround-
ing it are most clearly visible.
The best general view is obtained by passing
over the new retaining wall at the butt, and
thence up past the vertical face of rock to the
hill above it. Even from there, owing to fore-
shortening, it is difficult to realise the enormous
size of the monument, which is one-third as
high again as the largest obelisk in Karnak,
and more than triple the weight.
Its complete dimensions are as follows : —
137 feet.
Length . .
Base
Pyramidion base
Pyramidion height
Weight (if it had been extracted)
13 feet 9 inches.
8 feet 2 inches.
14 feet 9 inches.
,168 tons.
Photographs of the obehsk from the tip and
butt are given in figs. 3 and 4, and a plan of the
quarry, with sections, in fig. 7, p. 38. From
the latter it will be seen that the impression
25
26 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
gained from the ground, that the obelisk is
abnormally thick for its length, is incorrect.
It is fortunate that, in this small quarry, we
can see so many different examples of the methods
of the old workmen. At B, fig. 22 (shown
close in fig. 8), we see examples of the action of
ancient wedges and chisels, showing how easily
the Egyptians could cut granite. It appears
that all this wedging was with the object of
removing the rock to let the tip of the obelisk
pass when it was rolled out of the quarry. At
A and C, fig. 7, p. 38, we can see modern chisel-
dressing and what is probably a more recent
method of using the wedge, which is by cutting
a long channel instead of a series of small slots.
Granite, rotted by the action of fire, can be
picked up almost anywhere in the quarry;
test-shafts, sunk early in the work to study the
quahty of the granite, can be seen at C and D
in fig. 7, and the first can even now be traced
up to the original surface of the quarry. The
trench, by means of which it was intended to
separate the obelisk from the rock, is another
and unique example of the ancient method of
quarrying, and is discussed in Chapter IV. The
vertical face of rock above the obelisk is nothing
but the interior wall of another perimeter-trench,
from before which a monument— possibly an
obehsk— has been removed (fig. 18, p. 50). On
this face we have the records of the work of the
various shifts employed (fig. 13, P- 44 and p. 46).
Neither this nor the obelisk-trench show how
the monuments were to be detached from below,
I'iG. 3.— ASWAN OlJl-Ll.'^K FROM THL EAST.
(Page 25.)
26]
Fig. 4.— ASWAN OBELISK FROM THE WEST.
{Page 25.)
26]
DESCRIPTION OF ASWAN OBELISK 27
the one since a sufficient depth had not been
reached, the other because the bed has been
removed ; but so that nothing may be lacking,
above the quarry-face there still remains the
bed from which a monument of about 23 feet
long has been taken. We could wish for a
larger monument from which we might study
the under-cutting, since what applies to a
medium-sized block does not always apply to
those of very large size ; but we must be grateful
for what we have.
As to the date of the obelisk, there is very
little indication of it ; since it was a failure, it
was in nobody's interest to record it. It may
have been of the time of Queen Hatshepsowet
(i.e., about 1500 B.C.), since large obelisks seem
to have been the rule in her time. Further, the
outline of a smaller obelisk drawn upon the
surface of the large one (figs. 6 and 7), which
can be well seen just after sunrise, is of almost
exactly the same dimensions as that now known
as the Lateran obelisk at Rome, the work of
Tuthmosis III, her co-regent and successor.
These evidences of date should, however, be
accepted with a good deal of caution.
The obelisk was abandoned owing to fissures
in the granite, as the possibility of erecting a
very large obelisk depends entirely on the rock
being sound, particularly near the middle (p. 75).
Here, although the granite is of extremely good
quality, it is by no means flawless, and from the
very outset of the work the cracks and fissures
seem to have given the ancient engineers a
28 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
great deal of anxiety. Though parting fairly
evenly under the action of wedges, the natural
fissures in the granite are most erratic ; a small
fissure in one level or position may, in a couple
of metres, become a gaping crack into which
one could insert the blade of a knife ; con-
versely, what appears to be a deep fissure may
disappear at a lower level. Hence each crack
had to be rigorously examined to see its probable
effect on the completed obelisk. The methods
by which this examination is carried out are
described on page 37.
Fig. 7 (p. 38) is a plan, with sections, of the
obehsk, and shows all the fissures (lettered a,b, c,
&c.), and nearly all the guide-lines (indicated by
Greek letters). These show clearly that attempt
after attempt was made, by reducing the size
of the proposed obelisk, to obtain one in which
the granite was free from flaws.
For those who wish to examine the history
of these attempts in greater detail the following
notes may be of service. Very early in the work
— almost after the roughing-out was finished —
it was found that fissure 0, which cuts off the
corner of the obelisk, necessitated reducing its
length from the butt end. It was therefore
reduced 4 cubits, or 6 feet 10 inches, and a black
line (tt) drawn across the top surface of the
obelisk and down the sides to mark off the
reduction. The depth at which the trench was
abandoned at the butt shows how early it was
reaUsed that a length of 137 feet was impossible.
Almost as soon as this had been done it was
KiG. 5.— ilAMMEK-DKKSSING ON I'VRA-
MIDIOiN OF ASWAN OBELISK.
(Paga 36.)
Fig. 6.— outline OF SCHEME FOR REDUCING SIZE OF ASWAN OBELISK.
I {Pages 27 and 29.)
DESCRIPTION OF ASWAN OBELISK 29
found that fissures a, b, and c necessitated
shortening the obeUsk from this end also. The
lines c K X are the successive proposals for
reducing the length of the shaft in order to obtain
a flawless piece. Fissure c, however, showed
clearly that the pyramidion must be kept quite
clear of it, since it widens as it goes deeper.
Fissures j, k, I and in would have made the
quarry (or south) side of the obelisk liable to
split, so in a last attempt to obtain a perfect
piece of stone the centre line 77 was shifted to 0,
and a very much smaller obelisk set out from it.
This, as has been noted before, is almost exactly
the size of the Lateran obelisk. Even this
scheme did not escape the fissures, since at p
there is a large one, running right into the obelisk,
which would make it unsound at its most
vulnerable point, the centre. I have no doubt
that the obelisk was abandoned owing to fissure p.
It may be of interest to the reader to compare
the sizes and weights of some of the best -known
obelisks. Those marked with an asterisk are
scaled off photographs, making slight allowances
for foreshortening. (See p. 30.)
It is perhaps no more than a coincidence that
the outline for the Aswan " last attempt " has
a base of exactly the same size as that of the
fragment before Pylon VII at Karnak, namely,
10-3 feet, from which M. G. Legrain, the late
Director of Works, deduced a height of 124 feet
(37-77 metres). He assumed that the taper
would be the same as that of Queen Hatshep-
sowet's obelisk at Karnak, which, as a matter
30 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
of fact, is less than all others, thus making the
height greater than it would be with the average
taper. Last year a fragment of the companion
obelisk was found, from which it can be estimated
accurately that the base of the pyramidion was
2- 08 metres or 6-8 feet, which is very close to
the Aswan outline.
OBELISK.
BASE
(feet).
PYRA-
MIDION
BASE
(feet).
PYRA-
MIDION
HEIGHT
(feet).
TOTAL
HEIGHT
(feet).
TAPER
(see foot-
note 2).
WEIGHT
IN
TONS.
Aswan
Aswan (later pre
ject) . . .
Lateran^
Hatshepsowet .
Vatican
Luxor
-
13-8
10-3
9-8
7-9
8-8
8-2
8-0
7-7
7-8
6-2
7-0
8-2
6-6
6-2*
5-8
5-9
5-1*
5-1
5-3*
5-3*
4-0*
4-6
14-8
17-4
14-8*
9-7
4-4
6-4*
6-4
5-4*
5-4*
6-6*
7-8
137
105
105-6
97
83
82*
74
69-6
68-5
67
64
24-3
237
29-3
42-8
26-9
28-2
26-5
29-0
27-4
27-5
24-2
1,168
507
455
323
331
254
Paris
227
193
187
121
143
New Yorki. .
London 1
Mataria^
Tuthmosis I
* After Gorringe, Egyptian Obelisks.
' By taper I mean the length of the shaft in which one unit
decrease in width is observed.
All over the quarries at Aswan, and especially
round the obelisk, may be seen hundreds of
balls — some whole and some broken — of a very
tough greenish-black stone known as dolerite,
which occur naturally in some of the valleys in
the eastern desert. It is a curious but incon-
testable fact that not only were the faces of
monuments dressed by means of these balls —
which has been long known — but that they were
used for " cutting " out large monuments from
DESCRIPTION OF ASWAN OBELISK 31
the rock. In other words, they are the tools of
the quarrymen.
On the face of the high rock C (in fig. 22,
p. 60), nearest the obehsk, are two inscriptions,
and traces of others now barely legible. One
reads, in the Greek character : —
AM
CABINIANOC
CEPAnEIQN
OPCOY
" Am . . . Sabinianos (and) Serapeion (sons)
of Ursus." These are Greek forms of Latin
names, probably those of early visitors to this
quarry. Close to this inscription there is another
name EPMEINOC, Ermeinos, cut into the face
of the rock.
Two large embankments, dating from ancient
times, may be seen close to the quarry ; one
leads westwards from the quarry above the
obelisk, and another of gigantic size leads from
the low desert about 200 yards east of the obelisk
up to the quarries on the high desert. This can
be seen even from the Grenfell Tombs across the
river. Neither of these embankments appears
to have any connection with the great obelisk.
CHAPTER III
SETTING OUT AN OBELISK
IN the following chapters we will endeavour,
by deduction from the facts observed, and
from ancient records, to ascertain every step
in the history of an obelisk from the moment
when the ancient engineers arrived at Aswan,
from whence all the obelisks come, to the
moment when it is standing upright before the
pylon in the temple.
Where the evidence is insufficient, as in the
case of the details of the huge transport boats,
we will merely record the meagre facts which
have come down to us, as it would be unwise
to credit the Egyptians, in order to explain a
difficult point, with appliances or any know-
ledge which we are not certain that they
possessed.
At Aswan the surface of the granite consists
of huge boulders, some quite large enough to
provide a door-jamb or even a shrine, but none
which could possibly furnish a moderate-sized
obelisk. It must have required great experience
to judge whether there was likely to be a long,
flawless piece at a moderate depth. Whether
test-shafts were sunk to examine the quality
of the granite in all deep work I do not know,
but I think it most probable, though in my
superficial survey of the quarries I have not
32
SETTING OUT AN OBELISK 33
found any examples besides the two in the
obehsk quarry (fig. 7, at C and D).
The quickest and most economical way of
removing the top layers of the stratum is by
burning fires against the rock, which causes it
to break up very easily, especially if water is
poured on it while it is still hot — a method used
in India at the present day. There is a good
deal of evidence to show that the Egyptians
used this method, and it seems that the fires
must have been of papyrus reeds, which at that
time probably grew abundantly here just as it
infests certain parts of the upper reaches of the
Nile now. There are indications that these fires
were banked with bricks against the surface
to be destroyed. Traces of burning are seen at
A and B (fig. 18, p. 50), and burnt granite can
be picked up almost anywhere. It may be
remarked here that the burnt granite must be
distinguished from the weathered granite and that
decomposed by the ferruginous layers in the
stratum, which are likely to be confused with it.
In the actual obelisk quarry, wedge-marks
are seen only at one place. The large blocks
removed by a series of wedges acting in a channel
instead of in slots are almost certainly of a later
date than that of the obelisk. The (now)
entrance to the trench is also a later piece of
work, as the fine chisel-dressing is of the modern
type, and I even obtained a block from here
which had a hole " jumped " for blasting with
gunpowder. Although so few wedge-marks have
been found in the work on the obelisk, I believe
3
34 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
that they were freely used when necessary ;
where a large block could fall away from the
parent rock, wedges were probably more quick
than burning. They can be seen in thousands
all over the quarries. They are usually driven
from the top downwards, but some may be seen
which have acted horizontally and some even
from below. It has been asserted that the
wedges themselves were of wood and made to
expand by wetting them. Without wishing to
deny that the Egyptians knew and used this
method, I will merely observe that the taper
of the slots seems so great, and the sides of the
slots so smooth, that there would be a great
tendency for the wedges to jump out after
wetting rather than exert their pressure ; another
point is that it would be a somewhat difficult
matter to wet a horizontal wedge, and still more
difficult to do so from below. I am inclined to
think that the normal method was to use metal —
perhaps iron — wedges, with thin metal plates
between the wedge and the stone which are
now known as " feathers." The hammers may
well have been of stone after the fashion of the
Old Kingdom hammer from Gizeh (of black
granite), shown in fig. lo, p. 42. The method
used nowadays is to make, with a steel chisel,
a series of small holes along the line where
fracture is required, and by inserting small,
fat, steel punches in them and giving them in
turn, up and down the line, moderately hard
blows with a sledge-hammer. In the clearance
of the obelisk some hundreds of large blocks
SETTING OUT AN OBELISK 35
had to be broken up by this means before we
could conveniently remove them. These had
apparently been thrown down from the quarry
above. Ancient iron wedges, perhaps dating
to 800 B.C., are given in Petrie, Tools and
Weapons, Plate XIII, B 16, 17. Some enormous
wedge-slots may be seen at the top of the rock
in fig. 8, which may well have been cut for use
with expanding wooden wedges.
Having reduced the granite until they were
satisfied that it was suitable for extracting an
obelisk, and before dressing the surface in any
way, they began to sink squarish holes round
what was to be the perimeter or outUne of the
obelisk. This may well have been measured
out by cords stretched over the rough surface.
The traces of these pits can be best seen in the
further trench in fig. 7, p. 38, no. 3. The
method of making these pits is discussed in the
next chapter. There are plenty of indications that
they were begun before the surface of what was
to be the obelisk had been made smooth. For
reasons which will appear later, the work on
the pits progressed a good deal more slowly
than that on the trench, so that, by the time
the work had reached the stage at which it was
abandoned, the trench workers had almost
caught up with those engaged on the pits. Their
object appears to have been to obtain as much
knowledge of the state of the granite below as
possible, especially as regards any horizontal
fissures which might be met with, unsuspected
from above.
36 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
The next step, an extremely laborious process,
was to render the surface flat. This was done
entirely by bruising with the balls of dolerite
which have been found in such profusion in
the quarry. Examples of unfinished top-dressing
can be seen at the pyramidion and near the butt,
where the work was abandoned early (fig. 5,
p. 28). Whether these balls were used by
hand, or shod in some way on rammers, is
doubtful. It seems likely that they were so
mounted and worked by several men, as such
blows were dealt that the balls were sometimes
split in two — almost an impossibility by hand.
A smooth straight surface along and across
what was to be the upper face of the obelisk
was almost certainly obtained by the use of
what we now call " boning-rods." These are a
set of pieces of wood of exactly equal length,
now usually made T-shaped. One rod is held
upright at each end of the surface it is required
to straighten. A man standing at one end can,
if he sight along the top of these rods, see if a
third rod, placed somewhere between them, is
in a line with them or not. Thus the surface
can be tested anywhere along the obelisk and
corrected until it is quite flat. Boning-rods of
small size, used for dressing moderately large
blocks, have actually been found, and are pub-
lished in Petrie, Tools and Weapons, Plate XLIX,
B 44-46. These measure only about 3 inches
high, and their tops were connected by a string.
In the case of such a monument as an obelisk
the string would sag and produce a concave
SETTING OUT AN OBELISK 37
error. The visual method, quite as simple and
obvious, seems a legitimate assumption.
The accuracy in the work of obelisks is not of
a very high order, unlike the tremendous
accuracy seen in the Pyramids of Gizeh and
certain Old and Middle Kingdom monuments.
An error in the sides of the base is quite usual,
sometimes amounting to several inches. The
two obeUsks which stood before the temple of
Luxor were even different in height (see dimen-
sions of Luxor and Paris obelisks on p. 30),
It is well worth while to examine the faces of the
Karnak and Mataria obelisks at the moment
when they receive the sun's rays ; it is then
that one can see how considerable are the errors
in flatness. In the former obelisk faint traces
of the hammer-dressing, such as is seen in fig. 5,
can be observed.
In the Luxor obelisk which was removed to
Paris there appears to have been a convexity,
intentionally left on the front face, to counteract
the effect of concavity which is noticed in some
high monuments. This was the regular practice
in the case of Greek pillars, and is known as
*' entasis." I have not been able to trace it in
any of the Karnak obelisks nor in the unfinished
obelisk at Aswan.
As soon as a crack, fissure or even unusual
discoloration appeared in any part of the obelisk,
it had to be carefully examined to see how far
it went, and whether it became wider as the
work deepened. Three methods of examination
are to be seen on the obelisk. The normal
38 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
method was to hammer out a depression with
the ubiquitous dolerite balls at what seemed to
be the end of the fissure, leaving a small oblong
fillet so as to compare the appearance of the
granite at the surface with that at the bottom
of the depression. These examinations can be
seen in fig. 7 at j, k, n and p, n being also shown
in fig. 4, p. 26. Another method of testing
fissures is found at the base of the pyramidion ;
this consists of cutting, with a metal tool, an
oblong hole, tapering sharply downwards, over
the fissure. Here it was done to see the extent
of fissures h and d. It is possible that this
method was used when it was desired to save
time, perhaps on the occasion of an inspection.
The third method was to cut — and apparently
polish — a deep narrow channel right along the
fissure or discoloration. These channels are
seen in fig. 7 at ^ and h, and in fig. 6, p. 28.
It has been asserted that these channels are later
attempts to cut up the obelisk for monumental
stone, but this is not the case, as g is clearly a
continuation of fissure h, and h could never have
been used for detaching a piece from the parent
rock. If one follows i down the north face of
the obelisk three red lines can be seen which
were drawn by the foreman for the guidance of
the stonecutter.
It is rather difficult to say whether there is a
difference of date between the examinations by
channels and the others ; it depends on the
relative dates of the large obelisk and the last
attempt. I do not think that there is any great
SETTING OUT AN OBELISK 39
difference. It is clear, however, that the channels
belong to the latter work. The probable explana-
tion of them is that they are over discolorations
in the granite, recognised as such and left by
the original workmen.
Before we can say that we understand every
step of the work so far, we have to inquire into
the nature of the tools with which the wedge-
slots were cut. This is a problem that has not
been solved with certainty. Not only could the
Egyptians cut granite with chisels, but they could
cut even harder stones, such as diorite and quart-
zite. Though iron was known to them from
the earliest times (but used rather sparingly),
there is no evidence at all that steel was used ;
all the Egyptian words for metals have been
accounted for, none of which could be applied
to it. Another indication that steel was un-
known is that razors, which are often found,
are always of copper ; had steel been known
I think that razors would have surely been made
of it. Copper, with 2 per cent, alloy, can be
brought by hammering to the hardness of mild
steel, and it seems within the bounds of possi-
bility that the Egyptians could bring it to an
even greater hardness.
Wilkinson, in his Manners and Customs II,
page 255, cites an ancient chisel where the
malletted end was worn by the blows, but where
the cutting edge was sharp. This may well be
explained by the fact that it had just been
re-sharpened, but I have myself seen a chisel
with the edge split like a modern machine-tool.
40 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
I was unable to purchase this specimen, but I
tried the hardness with a knife and it was
obvious that any great temper that it may once
have possessed had disappeared. An examina-
tion of the structure of ancient copper chisels
shows conclusively that the copper had never
been raised to the annealing temperature.
It has been asserted that if the Egyptians
had known steel it would have perished by
oxydisation. This is not borne out by excava-
tions, as many iron tools have been found, such
as wedges, halberds, etc., which are hardly
rusted at all. In some soils almost anything
will be preserved ; in others everything, except
perhaps the pottery, perishes. An examination
of such fragments of iron tools as can be spared
might give us some definite information as to
whether any of them were of steel and so settle
a vexed question. I have spent hours trying to
cut granite with iron, copper, and even dolerite
chisels, and though granite can be cut — ^in a
manner of speaking — with all of them I am
convinced that the Egyptians used a much harder
tool. There is still a great divergence of opinion
on this subject, which is best left open until
further evidence is forthcoming.
CHAPTER IV
EXTRACTION OF AN OBELISK
IN this chapter we are concerned with the
formation of the obehsk and detaching it
from the surrounding rock for transport.
The surface of the rock is smooth and the work
on the pits around the obehsk is well under weigh.
The next step seems to have been to mark
on the surface of the rock the outline of the pro-
posed obehsk. This must have been done by
the normal Egyptian method of stretching a
cord covered with ochre or lampblack over the
proposed centre line and allowing the cord,
when correctly placed, to touch the stone. The
lines were next made permanent by scratching
them with a metal tool. A pot containing red
ochre was actually found during the clearance
of the obelisk. The ochre or lampblack was
probably mixed, before use, with acacia gum.
From this centre line, by measuring off, the
corners of the pyramidion and base were cor-
rectly marked and joined up.
Let us examine the structure of the interior
of the trench ; we are struck with the absence
of any marks of wedges or chisels. The ancient
chisels leave traces which are easily recognisable
(figs. 8 and 9), but here we have the effect of a
series of parallel, vertical " cuts " just as if the
rock had been extracted with a gigantic cheese-
scoop. A further feature of the trench is that
41
42 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
there are no corners — everything is rounded.
These pecuharities are seen, not only in the
trench, but in the pits within the trench and
even the test-shafts C and D (fig. 7). The only
tools which could produce this effect are the
dolerite balls of which we have already made
mention. The trench and pits were therefore
not cut out, but rather bashed out. These balls
measure from 5 to 12 inches in diameter, their
weights averaging 12 pounds. They are of almost
natural occurrence in some of the valleys in the
eastern desert, having been shaped by the action
of water in geological ages. A more economical
or efficient tool can hardly be conceived. I have
buried some hundreds of these behind the
retaining wall, as even their size and weight did
not protect them from souvenir-hunters.
The blows with these balls were struck verti-
cally downwards, often with such force as to
split them in two. This suggests that they
were shod on to rammers, as it is almost impos-
sible to break them by hand. The only way I
succeeded in doing so was by pitching one
down from a height on to a pile of others. This
is further borne out by the fact that the wear
on the balls is not even over the whole surface,
but appears in patches, showing that they were
used in one position until the bruising surface had
become flat, and then changed to another position.
If we enter the trench we see that, down the
division between each concave " cut," a red line
has been drawn, apparently by means of a
plumb-bob with its string dipped in ochre.
-WEDGE AND CHISEL MARKS
NEAR ASWAN OBELISK.
(Page 41.)
Fig. 9.— rough CHISEL-DRESSING ON
UNFINISHED SARCOPHAGI KNOWN
AS "EL-HAMM.\MMaT" near ASWAN.
(Page 41.;
42I
Fig. 10. -black GRANITE HAMMER FROM GIZEH.
(Page 34.)
Fig. II.— interior OF SEPARATING-TRENCH ROUND ASWAN OBELISK.
(Pages 42 and 43.)
Fig. 12.— view OF TRENCH ROUND ASWAN OBELISK WHEN STANDING WITHIN IT.
42]
EXTRACTION OF AN OBELISK 43
These red lines are not continuous, but have
been projected down from time to time as the
bottom of the trench became deeper. The
width between successive lines averages 11-77
inches, there being very little variation between
examples. These divisions seem to be feet.
The main measurements of the obelisk are based
on the royal cubit of 20-71 inches. Whether
this foot is intended to be on the same system
as the royal cubit I am not certain. The follow-
ing table shows that it can be referred to it
with tolerable closeness : —
Finger
.. (I) ..
•74 inches
Palm . .
.. (4) ..
.. 2-95
Foot . ,
.. (16) ..
.. II-8I
Common cubit
.. (24) ..
.. 17-71 ..
Royal cubit . .
.. (28) ..
. . 20-67 „
Looking down the trench (fig. 11) we see that
it is divided into a right and left half ; further,
from the upper quarry-face (fig. 13, p. 44), it
can be seen that the vertical measuring " chains *'
described on page 46 only occur every two
feet-divisions along the trench. The most
reasonable explanation of this seems to be that
each man or party of men were given two feet
of trench as their task, and that they worked it
from each side of the trench alternately. Some
130 men could work in the bottom of the trench
at the same time, possibly assisted by 260 more
working the rammers (p. 42) from above.
When the granite is broken up by means of the
dolerite balls or " pounders " it comes away
in the form of powder and not as flakes. If the
powder is not removed every few minutes, it
44 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
soon forms a cushion, and the effect of the
blows is reduced almost to nil. Handing the
powder out of the trench would be a great waste
of time, so it seems most likely that it was
brushed on to the part of the task which was not
being pounded ; that is, each man worked on
his task in four positions, with his back to, and
facing, the obelisk on his right and left foot of
trench. There is only one way by which such a
large number of men can work in so confined a
space without interfering with one another,
and that is by making each man work in the
same relative position on his task, and when
a change in the position is required, by letting
it be simultaneous. We have no means of
knowing at what intervals of time these changes
were made.
Nowadays work with rammers or mindalah's,
as the modern Egyptians call them, is always
done to a sort of chanty, and there is ample
evidence that the ancients made similar use of
songs to help them in their labours. We can
easily picture some ancient, leather-lunged fore-
man bawling out a prototype of the modern
mindalah song : —
(Chorus) Ya Sayyid hizz i/^-Hiiai
(Foreman) M' Is^iwdiria /«5A-Sheliai
(Chorus) Ya Sayyid hizz t/-Hiiai
(Foreman) Duqq' y' awl^d khabar eyb umm^l ?
O Sayyid, brandish the Crescent I
From Alexandria to the Cataract,
O Sayyid, brandish the Crescent I
Bash, boys, what's up with you ?
* The curious fall of the beat may horrify the Arabic scholar,
but this is the way I have so often heard it.
OS
-~
<
■^
o>
?
«
k:
U)
^
Ph
r<i
D
Y^
Z
at,
CJ
a,
EXTRACTION OF AN OBELISK 45
with 130 — perhaps 390 — men pounding out the
beat. With a good chanter who can extem-
porise rhyming hues full of highly-flavoured
personahties, the work the Egyptian can do is
little short of marvellous, but with a bad one
the tune soon degenerates into a kind of andante
religioso, resulting in remarks from the Director
of Works of quite the reverse kind. This is,
however, by the way.
The average width of the trench is about
2 feet 6 inches, and it is possible that the workmen
were given a minimum width ; but this is not
necessarily the case, as it would be false economy
to make the trench too narrow, since the cramped
position of the man in the trench would prevent
him getting the best force in his blows, besides
tending to make him pound his own toes instead
of the rock. In some places the trench, after
narrowing as it gets deeper, suddenly widens
out again. I explain these narrowings — best
seen at Z on fig. 7 — by the fact that the work
of a particular shift was to end at that level,
which they tried to reach quickly, knowing that
others had to continue it.
When one considers the cramped position
of the men pounding out the pits along the line
of the proposed trench in the initial stages of
the work, it can easily be understood how soon
the trench parties overhauled them (p. 35).
The work on the original test-shafts must have
been even slower still.
As to the manner of measuring up the work,
which was almost certainly done by forced
46 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
labour — some sort of corvee perhaps — helped
out by such troops and captives as were available,
I am convinced that it was by piece and not by
time. In the obelisk trench, the work appears
to have been measured by the foreman with a
scaled rod, from the various red and black
horizontal lines seen in great profusion on the
sides of the trench (for examples see fig. 7,
no. 6). In the work on the monument which
has been removed from before the upper quarry-
face (fig. 13), it seems that the work was measured
up after every two or three days' pounding from
<2L
Fig. 14. Fir,. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17.
TRACES OF INSCRIPTIONS ON UPPER QUARRY-FACE.
the bottom of the trench by means of a rod of
three cubits length, and the position of the top
of the rod marked with a short horizontal red
line, which was connected to the previous mark
by an inverted Y. This seems the only explana-
tion of the curious red chains seen faintly in the
middle of the two-foot tasks. The half-effaced
chains higher up seem to be the records of the
EXTRACTION OF AN OBELISK 47
preceding shifts. These appear to have been
distinguished by short inscriptions scrawled by
them in red paint. Most of these inscriptions
are too faint to transcribe. Figs. 14-15, from
the right of the chains in divisions VIII, IX and
XII respectively, and fig. 17, from the left of
the red chain of division VIII, are the most
complete and clear, but they are too fragmentary
to translate. They may originally have given
some information as to the party engaged in
their division. At the extreme left of the upper
quarry-face there are traces of a hieratic inscrip-
tion of two lines which I have not been able to
decipher nor to photograph with any clearness.
It is in black paint, and appears to begin with a
date and to have a number in the middle, but
does not give any royal name.
It is rather tempting to see, in the black lines
a and c (fig. 13) on the upper quarry-face, the
top and bottom faces of a small obelisk with h
as its centre line. If this is so, the taper is i in
17-5, which is sharper than other obelisks.
Line c is very nearly level, and both h and c are
divided into feet by short black vertical lines
in the middle of the pounded-out grooves. The
reason of this is not clear to me, neither have I
been able to find any explanation of the red
line d, which is separated from the line a by
2 feet, nor for the eyes and other signs which
occur at various places on the face of the rock.
The red nefer sign under the eye just after
division XIII is usually used to mean "ground
level " in other quarries, but it certainly has
48 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
not that meaning here, though it may well
indicate that line c, at the top of the sign, is
meant to be level.
To return to the trench, it is interesting to
speculate on the amount of time which was
expended in making it. To ascertain this,
I tried pounding for an hour by hand at various
times on one of the quarters of a two-foot task,
and I found that I had reduced the level by about
5 milHmetres {'2 inches) average. With practice
I could perhaps have done more. Let us assume
that the ancients could extract 8 millimetres
.3/: (3' 15 inches) per hour from a similar area ; then
the time taken to make the trench must be
that taken to do the deepest part. In this
obelisk the trench would have to be 165 inches
to make it of square cross-section and we must
allow at least 40 inches for under-cutting (p. 49),
making a total depth of trench required of 205
'?'" inches. Supposing that 3*15 inches were
extracted from a quarter of each party's task
4x205
a: per hour, it will require 3.3-^x12x30 ^^ ^'^
months of twelve hours per day. The under-
cutting would have taken at least as long again,
even though it could be done from both sides
at once.
Before leaving the subject of the time taken,
let us apply the results obtained from my
pounding experiments to the obelisk of Queen
Hatshepsowet at Karnak, of which the measure-
ments are given on page 30. To the base
measurement of 94 inches we must add, say,
EXTRACTION OF AN OBELISK 49
30 inches for under-cutting, making a total
depth required of 124 inches. Calculating in
the same way as before, we find the time neces-
sary would be 4-4 months, working twelve hours
a day. For detaching it from below we may add
a similar period, making 8-8 months.
It is recorded by the Queen that ** they are of
one block of enduring granite, without seam or
joining. My Majesty exacted work thereon
from the year 15, the first of the sixth month
until the year 16, the last day of the twelfth
month, making seven months of exaction in the
quarry. "^ If the men were worked in continuous
shifts, this work could have easily been done
in the time she mentions, even if the Egyptians
were not able to break up the granite at a much
greater rate than I was able to do. At the foot
of the standing obehsk at Karnak, where her
inscription appears, she implores us not to say
" it is a He I " but rather " how like her ! " The
calculation above at any rate tends to give her
the benefit of the doubt.
The only evidence we have as to how the
obelisk was separated from the rock beneath
it is to be found above the upper quarry-face,
where there is a bed from which a monument
22 feet long has been removed (shown in fig. ig,
p. 50). The bottom of the trench around it
can still be traced, and the two-foot divisions are
^ The months refer to the absolute year. The regnal year
15 happens to end in the middle of the period referred to.
Hence the apparent error in the number of months stated.
It is a quite correct total. For complete translation see
page loa.
4
50 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
of the same size as those of the great obehsk.
Here it is quite clear that the detaching from
below was done also by pounding. In the work
below the monument, though the two-foot
divisions of each party's task are rigidly main-
tained, the sub-divisions into a right and left
half have become very irregular, which is what
would be expected in work under such condi-
tions. A curious fact is that the monument
has been snapped off when the workers on each
side had nearly met. Whether this was inten-
tional or not cannot be known, but it seems
more likely that it was accidental. With regard
to a large obelisk, I think we may safely say that
it was neither snapped off its bed nor removed
by the action of wedges from both sides. In a
very long monument, the strains set up by the
uneven expansions of the wedges, some biting
true and some slipping out and not acting at
all, would probably crack the monument in
two, especially in the case of an obelisk like this,
which could only safely stand the strains due
to its own weight (p. 75). It is fairly safe to
assume that all large monuments were com-
pletely detached, perhaps by driving a series of
galleries through first, packing them well by
wood or stone as near the centre of the monu-
ment as possible, and then removing the
remainder of the rock. There is no evidence at
all as to the nature of the packing.
At the west end of the ridge from which the
small monument has been removed there is a
short inscription in red paint. It seems to begin
Fig. i8.— VlliW OF ASWAN OBELISK FROM THE NORTH.
(Pages 26 and 33.)
50]
Fig. 19.— bed IROM WHICH A S.MAEL MONU-
MENT, PROBABLY AN OBELISK, HAS BEEN
REMOVED.
(Page 49.)
EXTRACTION OF AN OBELISK 51
with the words " The work of," followed by a
group of signs which are not intelligible to me.
It seems that the last group of signs are not
hieroglyphs at all. Such illegible groups are not
rare in quarries.
During the clearance of the obeHsk, part of a
letter on a piece of pottery was found. Though
extremely fragmentary, there was a remark
on it about " beating " the stone. This may
well refer to the pounding process by which the
monuments were extracted.
CHAPTER V
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK
IN the last chapter we discussed the methods
by which the quarrying was performed. The
next step was the removal of the obelisk from
the quarry, and its transport to the river and
thence by water to its destination.
It might be remarked that the Aswan obelisk
— the largest known — has not been transported,
but I think we are justified in assuming that
the man responsible for the work would never
have begun on it had he not every reason to
believe that he could carry it out. Judging
from such sketches as have come down to us
of the character of Egyptian kings, they were
not likely to tolerate a failure, unless it was
from some unavoidable cause. We must bear
in mind, too, that the ancient engineers moved
blocks as heavy as this obelisk, and even more
unmanageable — the colossi of Amenophis III
and the colossus of Ramesses II at Thebes. We
shall, therefore, take the Aswan obeHsk as the
basis of our speculations as, if we can account
for every step in its history from the quarry to
the temple, we can account for that of any other
obelisk. The converse, reasoning from a small
obelisk, would not necessarily be true.
The obelisk, then, is lying on its packing
surrounded by the trench, but detached from the
parent rock.
52
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 53
If we look at the surface of the rock outside
the north (valley side) trench, we see that its
level is the same as that of the surface of the
obehsk. The parts A and B (fig. 7, p. 38)
have most certainly been removed at a later
date than the rest. It seems that a surface
of rock, running continuously along the outside
of the trench at the same level as that of the
obelisk, was purposely left. It might be urged
that this is merely the remainder of the flattened
surface on which the obehsk was set out (p. 36).
This may weU be the case, but if we consider
in detail how the obelisk was to be got out of
the pit in which it lies, factors arise which point
to a very definite reason for leaving this surface
as it now is.
There are two methods by which the obelisk
can be removed from its present position : one
is by raising it, and the other is by removing
the rock from in front of it ; sliding it out end-
ways is impossible in this particular case. It
may be mentioned here that to pull the obelisk
over, on a level surface, would require some
13,000 men, which I am convinced could not be
put on ropes in the constricted area of the quarry.
To roll it out as it is would require an enormous
quantity of rock to be removed, and one would
think that, if they intended to use this method,
they would have begun to do so as soon as
possible. The fact remains, however, that they
have not begun to do this, though they are well
on with the breaking up of the rock (B, fig. 22,
p. 60) to let the tip of the obelisk pass out.
54 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
This piece of rock is also to be seen in fig. 8,
p. 42.
A combination of both methods seems to
have been intended, and the reason for leaving
the north trench intact was for the use of large
vertical levers. These would probably be tree-
trunks, some two feet in diameter and 20 or
more feet long, inserted, with suitable packing,
in the trench, with many men pulling on ropes
attached to the top of them. It seems that
the workmen had begun to reduce the rock on
the quarry side of the obelisk as well, so that
levers could be used from there also. By using
these levers from both sides of the obelisk in
turn, it could be made to rock slightly backwards
and forwards and gradually be raised by increas-
ing the height of the packing below at each heave.
By this means the base could be raised some
8 feet above its present level, and the quantity
of rock to be removed from in front of the
obelisk greatly reduced in consequence.
As to the numbers of levers needed ; it can
easily be calculated that, if they used thirty
20-foot tree-trunks at a leverage of six to one,
with 50 men pulling on the ropes at the top of
each, the obeHsk would move, and the wood —
whether it was of fir, cypress or sycomore-
fig — would not be unduly strained. This is a
conservative figure, and I think it Ukely that
they would have used much taUer trunks with
at least 100 men pulling on each. On the further
side of the obelisk, a comparatively small amount
of rock would have to be removed in order to
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 55
use the levers as, if they can move some 20
degrees back from the vertical, a sufficient rise
in that side of the obelisk could be obtained.
As the base of the obelisk became higher, rock
would have to be packed behind the levers,
and on the valley side tliis would have to be
very considerable, though with only 100 men
per lever they could be used at a slope.
As to the problem of packing the levers and
keeping them steady, this is merely a matter
of head-ropes and foot-ropes and could have
been done in many ways. I do not propose to
speculate on which particular method the
Egyptians used, as there is no evidence on the
subject.
Directly the obelisk had been raised as high
as possible, the destruction of the rock in front
of it would be done by wedging and burning,
as described in Chapter III. I should think
that it would be removed until there was a
considerable slope downwards to the valley
below, which would greatly reduce the number
of men required to roll it. At the last heave
of the levers from the valley side, the packing
could be entirely withdrawn, and sand substi-
tuted ; this could be gradually removed, and
the obelisk allowed to settle down on to its edge
and a great saving of men effected in this, its
first and most difficult turn. By judiciously
introducing a bank of sand where the middle
of the face of the obelisk was to come, and
by digging below its edge, the rolling could be
made to approximate to that of a cylinder and
56 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
its downward journey rendered comparatively
easy.
The ropes for rolling the obelisk out would be
passed round it and brought out to anchorages
in front. I believe that 40 7j-inch palm ropes
(or their equivalent), pulled by 6,000 men, would
be sufficient to handle the obelisk in any stage
of its removal down the valley. Such large
ropes would have to be pulled by handling-
loops. In the scene of the transport of a great
winged bull at Nineveh, they can be seen
passing over the men's shoulders, being attached
at both ends to the main cable. In a photograph
in Wonders of the Past, page 421 (Harmsworth
Encyclopedias), these loops can be seen very
clearly.
The occurrence of levers is so rare that it has
been doubted whether the Egyptians knew of
them. I think that there is not the slightest
doubt that they did know of them, as in the
temples of the Theban area and in the temple
of the third pyramid at Gizeh, one can see large
blocks, undercut at various points along their
length, obviously to take the points of levers.
In a tomb at El-Bersheh {Annates du Service des
Antiquitis, I, p. 28), an acacia branch, with
its end cut to a chisel edge, was found, which
must have been used to manipulate the lid of
the sarcophagus. It might be asked why no
very large levers have been found. The reason
is that large baulks would not be abandoned in
the quarry, but would be used until they were
no longer sound, and then cut up and re-used
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 57
for other purposes. Like timber baulks to-day,
they were of considerable value, and not thrown
away when a job was completed. The Assyrians,
at any rate, knew them, for in a sculpture of
about the Vlllth century B.C. there is a scene of
men hauling along a colossal bull mounted on a
sled running on rollers, with men overcoming the
initial friction with levers from behind (Layard,
Discoveries, Plates X-XVII).
We know, from the celebrated sculpture at
Der El-Bahari, that the obelisks of Queen
®=>^
■ ■ ■ '' ' '
Fig. 20.— obelisk OF HATSHEPS6WET, MOUNTED ON A SLED, FROM HER
SCULPTURES AT D^R EL-BAHARI.
Hatshepsowet were transported on sleds. Fig.
20 is taken from the transport scene. It was
probably done by the court artist from memory,
and though the general impression is most likely
correct, several of the details appear to be wrong.
Thus he slurs over the manner in which the
baulks of timber at the top of the obeUsk were
attached to those on the sled, which must have
been done by the known Egyptian method of
the " Spanish windlass," that is, by passing
ropes round corresponding baulks and tighten-
ing them after the manner of a tourniquet
(fig. 28, p. 70). The position of the hauling-rope
in the centre of the obeUsk must also surely be
wrong, as that would be the very worst position
for pulling the obeHsk ; the rope would, of course,
58 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
be attached to the sled, as it is shown in other
similar scenes which have come down to us.
It seems likely too that the obelisk was really
on the sled the reverse way round (p. 70). The
fact that the Der El-Bahari obelisks were mounted
on sleds is no proof that all obelisks were so
mounted for transport, but I think it most
likely that they were, as without a sled it would
be extremely difficult to attach ropes to the
obelisk so as to be able to pull it lengthways ;
further, a sled would be an excellent shock-
absorber and would equahse the upward pressure
of the rollers along the length of the obelisk.
This is almost a necessity in such a long obehsk
as this, as, if it came down on a roller near its
centre with a jerk, it would snap in two (p. 75).
Next comes the vexed question whether rollers
were used in conjunction with the sled or not.
It has been assumed by certain writers, because
in the tomb scene of the transport of the 60-ton
statue of Dhuthotpe at El-Bersheh (Lepsius,
Denkmdler, II, 134, and p. 59) the sled was
merely pulled over a wetted track, that aU blocks
were so transported, whatever their size. When
it is reahsed that it took 172 men — who would
pull about 8 tons — to haul this statue, one
hesitates to assert that a block of 1,170 tons
was so handled. Caution is very necessary, but
to deny that rollers were known in Egypt, as
some writers would have us do, is either to
invite far less justifiable assumptions, or to bring
all reasoning to a standstill. The 227-ton
obelisk now in Paris, when it was being pulled
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 59
up a slight slope, mounted on a sled or " cradle "
sliding over a greased way, required a pull of
94 tons. To handle the Aswan obelisk in this
way would take at least 11,000 men, which is
Fig. 21.— TRANSPORT OF THE STATUE OF DHUTHOTPE, FROM HIS TOMB
AT EL-BERSHEH.
outside the bounds of possibility, if only from
considerations of space. Small rollers have
actually been found, but no large ones, for reasons
already given for the absence of large levers.
It is rather difficult to obtain data as to the size
6o THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
of rollers required for such an obelisk as that of
Aswan. The only information I can give is
that the top of the fallen obelisk of Queen
Hapshepsowet rests on 8-inch diameter pitch-
pine rollers, spaced about a yard apart, and
there is no sign of any crushing, though they
have been there for many years. The worst
pressure at that spacing which they would have
to bear at the butt-end of the Aswan obelisk,
if it were placed on them for transport, would
not exceed ii times the amount they bear now.
The process of putting the obelisk on to its
sled and rollers must have been something of
this kind : at the foot of the slope leading down
from the quarry the sled — mounted on its rollers
and track baulks — would be buried, sighting-
poles being put in to mark the position of its
axis. The obehsk would then be rolled down
the slope until it lay exactly over the sled, and
the sand dug away till the obelisk settled down
on to it. After digging the sled clear, the journey
to the river could be begun, the track being
packed as hard as possible, most probably with
baulks of timber laid down lengthways on which
the rollers could run. The route for the Aswan
obelisk would almost certainly have been north-
eastwards along the track of the old Barrage
railway (D-A, fig. 22, and fig. 26, p. 70), until
it joined the embankment F-E which leads to
the river. Its exact point of arrival at the Nile
is hidden by the modern town.
On the details of the enormous barges on which
obehsks are known to have been transported,
U\ 111
SliS;S^^
iN3W>iNVaW3 u.
-—or
.:zo —
wmsi!iiimm mi
>^'-
* '
'■?■'-'■
'<-'^.
-- »>
^,^'^'
r.^^.'-
>'-- **-,
VV'
;:-.^
■>J'. ■*•
*^'
j^^ -t
<^^', 6-
O
'<5>^ -
-i-
'■;■.•,<?:•'<''
>>>
'•i U5
i ^ :>;-$'^vsi"W!5^i-
i^^^~-
I
*ffe:^.;-c=^/
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 6i
I have to be more than vague, as the only scene
of a boat sufficiently large to carry an obelisk
is that on the Der El-Bahari sculpture, where
the two obelisks — probably those now seen at
Kamak — are both placed butt to butt on the
same barge ! The boat used must have been
over 200 feet in length. Another great barge
is mentioned (p. 94) measuring 207 feet long by
69 feet broad, which carried the two obehsks
Fig. 23.— cargo-boat, NEW KINGDOM.
of Tuthmosis I, and we have a record of a third
boat in the Old Kingdom, made by one Uni of
the Vlth dynasty, which was 102 feet long, and
which took only 17 days to build (Breasted,
Ancient Records, I, 322, and II, 105).
Mr. Somers Clarke, in Ancient Egypt, 1920,
Parts I and 2 (Macmillan ; 2S. quarterly) , has
collected all known facts on the construction
of ancient boats. He admits that the details
of the very large ships are quite unknown, as the
Der El-Bahari boat already referred to is only,
as it were, an impressionist view, and from
it we can learn little of its internal structure.
fg^aK^-T^^fl
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 63
The ancient boats in the Cairo Museum are only
of quite small size ; these are built without ribs,
but whether the obelisk-barges were of this type
also is uncertain. The Der El-Bahari boats are
stiffened by means of a series of ropes attached
to the bow and stern, passing over vertical
supports at two points in the body of the boat,
thus forming what is now known as a queen-
truss or hog-frame. This method of stiffening is
well shown in figs. 23 and 24. It is better to
leave the question of the large boats until further
evidence is forthcoming, but before doing so I
will give a passage in Mr. Clarke's article which
is of interest to the general reader. He says,
quoting from a letter from the late Mr. Francis
Elgar, Director of Naval Construction to the
British Government : " The two great obelisks
of Karnak, 97 feet 6 inches long, could be carried
on a boat about 220 feet long and 69 feet beam,
upon a draught of water of about 4 feet 6 inches
or not exceeding 5 feet." Some of the large
Cook's boats approach this length, but their
beam is very different. Mr. Clarke remarks
later : " Whence came the necessary knowledge,
at what period did the people begin to accumu-
late the experience, which culminated in their
power to deal with immense weights . . . not only
in the Xllth and XVIIIth dynasties, but in the
IlIrd and IVth ? "
It is a very great pity that the scenes of the
transport by boat of Hatshepsowet's obelisks
are not accompanied by a real descriptive text.
All that we can learn from the inscriptions is
64 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
that the boat was built of sycomore-fig, and
the fact that a whole army was mustered at
Elephantine, or Aswan, to load the obelisks on
to it. There is plenty also about the rejoicings
of the priests, marines and recruits over their
arrival at Thebes. The scenes themselves, how-
ever, show us that the obelisk-barge was towed
by three rows of oared tow-boats, which were
arranged nine in a row, each row being led by
a pilot-boat. Near the great barge are three
boats escorting it, in which religious ceremonies
are apparently being performed. We see the
troops on the shore waiting to do the unloading,
and an offering being performed by officials and
priests. The name of the King, Tuthmosis HI,
is mentioned in the laudatory sentences after
the Queen. In the view of the great barge,
which is badly damaged, the obelisks are placed
high up on her deck. This is possibly a trick
by the artist so that they may be visible.
There is only one practical way of putting a
large obelisk into a barge, and that is by getting
the boat as close to the bank as possible, building
an embankment round and over it, and pulling
the obeHsk directly over the boat and letting
it down into its place by digging out the filling
from beneath it. Possibly a new set of baulks
and rollers were already prepared inside the
barge. The boat would then be dug clear and
the journey by water made. Though I see no
reason to suppose that the rise and fall of the
Nile were used for the loading and unloading
of the boat, it is more than probable that it
TRANSPORT OF AN OBELISK 65
was arranged that the water journey was made
at high Nile to minimise the risk of running
aground.
The unloading would be a rather simpler
matter. An embankment would be constructed
from the shore to the boat (and around it), but
only reaching to the level of the rollers of the
obelisk. The boat would be destroyed — or at
least the prow removed — and the journey con-
tinued towards the temple.
CHAPTER VI
ERECTION OF OBELISKS
THE ancient method of setting up a large
obelisk has been a fruitful subject for
speculation for generations, and many
extraordinary theories have been put forward
by archaeologists, engineers, architects, and that
bane of the serious student, the reckless exponent
of the occult.
In mediaeval and modern times, the erection
of an obelisk has always involved capstans
or winches actuating a system of pulleys, and
in most cases a " jack " — either hydraulic or
screw — has had to be called into use. It is
generally admitted that the Egyptians were
not familiar either with the screw-jack, capstan,
winch or the system of pulleys arranged to give
a mechanical advantage ; it is even debatable
whether they knew the simple pulley.
Sheers (see fig. 41, p. 116) were possibly
known in principle, though we have no proof
of it, but the erection of an obelisk by this means
must involve the use of the capstan or winch.
This leaves levers as the only source of power
except the employment of large numbers of
men. We have therefore to try and explain
how the large obelisks were erected by these
means only.
Two theories stand out as being reasonable,
though both leave a good deal unexplained.
66
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 67
One is that the edge of the obeHsk was placed
so as to engage in the narrow notch which always
runs along one side of the surface of the pedestals
(see fig. 25, A-B), and that it was gradually
levered up, the earth being banked behind the
levers at each heave, until the obelisk was leaning
against an earth slope at a sufficiently steep
angle to permit it to be easily pulled upright.
This method was actually used for the erection
of the memorial obelisk of Seringapatam, but
the obelisk only weighed some 35 tons. Some
of the reasons against this having been the
Egyptian method are as follows : —
(a) The Egyptians could introduce obelisks
inside courts whose walls were shorter than the
length of the obelisk. Queen Hatshepsowet put
hers between her father's pylons where there
was a court of Osirid figures, and there is no
evidence at all that any of the walls had been
removed or rebuilt ; in fact I am certain that
they were not.
{b) Some obelisks are so close to their pylons
that there would hardly be room for the huge
levers which would have had to be used.
(c) After pulling the obelisk upright there is
nothing to stop it from rocking about and getting
out of control. The lowering of the New York
obelisk (p. 118) showed clearly that, once it was
on the move, head-ropes were more than un-
reliable in checking the momentum of such a
mass.
{d) The obelisk of Hatshepsowet at Karnak
has come on to its pedestal askew (see fig. 25),
68 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
-»
and has never used the notch at all, as its
edge is quite sharp and unburred. This shows
that the notch — an essential for this method —
was not an essential for the ancient method.
The other theory is that the obelisk was
pulled up a long sloping embankment until
it was at a
height well
above that of
its balanc-
ing-point or
"centre of
gravity,"
and that
earthwascut
from below
it carefully
until the ob-
elisk settled
down on to
the pedestal
f
Fig. 25.
POSITION OF THE BASE OF HATSHEPSOWET'S
OBELISK ON ITS PEDESTAL.
with its edge
in the ped-
estal - notch,
leaning, as in the last method, against the end
of the embankment. From thence it was pulled
upright.
The use of a large sloping embankment is
more than likely, as (see note a above) the
obelisk was obviously lowered on to its pedestal
and not raised at all ; this method, however, has
some serious objections, which may be summed
up briefly :
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 69
(a) It would be extremely risky business to
cut earth from below an overhanging obelisk
of 500 tons and upwards. Anyone who has
seen earth undercut below a large stone in
excavating work or elsewhere knows that the
earth has a partiality for sHpping sideways in
any direction but the expected—preferably on
to the heads of one's workmen.
(b) To make an obehsk settle down from a
height on to a small pedestal by under-cutting
would be an impossibihty. Whatever method
the Egyptians used, it was certain, and did not
depend on the skill of the men with the pick
and basket.
(c) See note c on the levering-up theory,
which is equally applicable here.
A method which is mechanically possible
and which meets all observed facts is that the
obehsk was not let down over the edge of an
embankment, but down a funnel-shaped pit in
the end of it, the lowering being done by remov-
ing sand, with which the pit had been filled,
from galleries leading into the bottom of it, and
so allowing the obelisk to settle slowly down.
Taking this as the basis of the method, the form
of the pit resolves itself into a tapering square-
sectioned funnel — rather like a petrol-funnel —
fairly wide at the top, but very little larger than
the base of the obehsk at the bottom. The
obelisk is introduced into the funnel on a curved
way leading gradually from the surface of the
embankment until it engages smoothly with the
hither w^all of the funnel. The sand is removed
70 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
by men with baskets through galleries leading
from the bottom of the funnel to convenient
places outside the embankment. Fig. 27 shows
a model of such an embankment, in which the
proportions of the obelisk and pylon are the same
as those of the temple of Luxor. The opening
in the front of the embankment at ground level
leads into the bottom of the left wall of the funnel
inside, entering just above the pedestal, over
which the funnel is built. In this photograph
the slope of the surface of the embankment is
somewhat exaggerated ; in reality it must have
been very gradual, like that shown in fig. 26.
The model of the embankment is almost exactly
a To\y^ scale model of that which is given in
the Anastasi Papyrus (see p. 89). The obelisk,
which is of limestone, is a xrm^ scale model
of the Aswan obelisk. By a curious coincidence
they seem suitable to each other.
In fig. 28, the obelisk has arrived at the top
of the slope and is overhanging the sand in the
funnel. The model is made sectional as far as
the funnel is concerned, and it must be imagined
that a portion of the side of the embankment has
been removed in order to show what is going on
inside. A vertical sheet of glass has been put
in the place of what would have been the front
wall of the funnel to keep the sand from pouring
out.
As to how the sled was separated from the
obelisk I am not certain ; it matters the less
since there are several simple ways by which
this can be done. In this series of photographs
V
-^t^.
c^
.*4^ y*
Fig. 26.— gigantic EMBANKMENT FOR TRANSPORTING STONE, ASWAN.
{Pages 31 and 70.)
70]
Fig. 27.— SECTIONAL MODEL OF AN EMBANKMENT, TO SHOW METHOD OF
ERECTING OBELISKS.
I Page 70.)
-OBELISK AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE, OVERHANGING THE
SAND-FUNNEL.
{Page 70.)
-SLED HALF REMOVED.
{Page 71.)
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 71
the simplest method has been used, though I
do not in any way insist that it was the ancient
way.
In fig. 29 the overhanging part of the sled
has been removed, and in fig. 30 the obelisk has
been allowed to slide forward into the sand,
and the attachments of the hind part of the sled
taken away. Though this method would be
quite suitable for any of the standing obelisks
of Egypt, in the case of the Aswan obehsk, where
the least jerk would be fatal, I imagine that the
obelisk would be rolled on baulks right over the
sand, and the sled, baulks and rollers cut and
dug away, a rather more tedious process. It
has been suggested to me that the obelisk and
sled went down the funnel together. My objec-
tion to this is that a heavy obelisk and the light
sled would part company on the way down,
especially since the sled would be held back
in the initial stages of the descent by the very
great friction against the curve leading into the
funnel. It would also be a difficult matter to
gauge the exact position of the pedestal-notch
so that the edge of the obelisk should engage
in it.
Fig. 31 shows the obelisk on its way down. In
this model, the sand was not actually removed
through the galleries at the front and end of
the embankment, but was allowed to run out
through a slit — placed where the pedestal-notch
should be — in the bottom of the funnel, directly
under its left wall. The descent of the obelisk
in the model is quite automatic, and it comes
72 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
down every time as shown in fig. 32, but in an
actual erection the rate of descent would be
much slower and the flow of the sand, which in
the model produces a decided dynamic effect,
would be absent. It is more than probable
therefore that men would go down with the
obelisk and, by digging, correct any tendency
of the obelisk to lean sideways and to ensure —
if necessary by inserting baulks (struts) between
the base of the obelisk and the opposite wall of the
funnel — that it did not jam against it. After
the position shown in fig. 31 had been passed,
there would be little fear of a jam. It seems to
have been neglect of these precautions which
allow^ed Hatshepsowet's standing obelisk at
Karnak to come down too far forward, and so
miss the notch on the pedestal altogether
(fig. 25, p. 68).
The obelisk should come to rest as shown in
fig. 32, lying flat against the left wall of the funnel.
I have made several experiments in the slope
of the sides of the funnel and the form of the
leading-in curve, and I find that a wide range of
variation will produce the desired results. The
only necessity appears to be that the left wall
of the funnel must be straight until it is of a
height of at least two-thirds the height of the
balancing-point of the obelisk before the curve
begins.
If the position of the bottom of the funnel as
regards the pedestal is so arranged that the notch
in the latter comes directly under the left wall,
the obelisk will come down on to the interior
Fir.. 30.— OBELISK ENGAGING IN THE SAND ; ALL THE LASHINGS
ARE RELEASED.
[Page 71.)
^^-.r
1
■
\
\ " ■
■t.^
/
3
1
■
72]
Fig. 31.— OBELISK HALF-WAY DOWN THE FUNNEL.
{Page 71.)
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 73
edge of the notch instead of on its own edge, which
will thus be preserved from damage. Hatshep-
sowet's obelisk, through missing the notch,
split the corner B severely, which had to be
rounded off to cover up the defect. Besides this,
the notch had another function, which was to
prevent the obelisk from twisting when it was
pulled upright, and the Queen's obelisk — again
through missing the notch — has twisted con-
siderably, its position being CDEF instead of
C'D'E'F' (fig. 25, p. 68). It is likely that part
of the wall of the funnel had to be cut away to
enable the obelisk to be pulled upright, though
in any case I should imagine that enough space
was left between the base of the obelisk and the
funnel to enable men to get round and remove
any stones, etc., which might have come down
in the sand. It is seen, therefore, that the
notch, although not an essential to the process
of erection, is necessary for a perfect piece
of work.
As soon as the obelisk had come down into
its notch (fig. 32), men would enter through the
gallery leading in from the end of the embank-
ment, and clear every particle of sand from
under the base, before it was pulled upright
(fig. 33). Any tendency to rock after passing
its dead-centre could be avoided by filling the
space between the obelisk and the further wall
of the funnel with coarse brushwood to act as
a sort of cushion. The reason why I suppose
that the sand was removed from the front
gallery (which leads into the left side of the
74 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
funnel) is that, if it were removed through the
end gallery, there would be a far greater likeli-
hood for the obelisk to jam against the opposite
wall, since the flow of sand would be forwards
rather than from under the obelisk.
An alternative possibility for the form of the
funnel is that it had vertical walls in a transverse
sense, the width being but very slightly greater
than that of the base of the obelisk ; in other
words, made so that the obehsk entered like a
penny in the slot. By this means, full advantage
would be taken of the weight of the sand above
the obehsk, which would have the effect of bring-
ing the base downward. I think, however, that
the advantage gained would be discounted by
the difficulty of controlling the descent by
digging, etc., but it is a possibility which must
be taken into serious consideration.
In the base of the now fallen obelisk of
Tuthmosis III, which stood before the pylons
of Tuthmosis I at Karnak, there are two rounded
depressions near the centre. These may have
been for inserting soft wooden blocks to act as
shock-absorbers and to prevent the obelisk from
tilting itself upright, prematurely, in its descent.
The curious marks on the pedestal of the west
obelisk of Luxor Temple may have fulfilled a
similar purpose.
It is noteworthy, in the pedestals of the various
obelisks, that their notches are not on the river
side of the pedestals, even, as in the case of the
obelisk which once stood before Pylon VII at
Karnak, when the distance to the river was
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 75
nearly 400 yards. To obtain sufficient height
in the embankment, this obeUsk had to be
taken directly inland and brought back on an
embankment which must have been constructed
right over the Sacred Lake. Existing pylons
prevented it from being brought to its pedestal
parallel to the river, as was done in the case of
the obelisks of Tuthmosis I and III on the axis
of the temple at Kamak. This is another hint
that the embankment theory is correct.
Before we can say that the funnel theory is a
possibility, we have to make sure that the
largest obelisk known will not break owing to
its great weight when supported at or pivoting
round its centre of gravity or balancing-point.
The non-technical reader will grasp this point
better if he realises that a model obelisk like that
shown in the photographs, which can be sup-
ported anywhere, and even leaned upon as well,
without breaking, will not behave in the same
way if it is magnified some 200 times, although
the proportions are identical and the material
the same. The strain due to its own weight is
proportional to the Unear dimensions of the
monument. I will not give here the extremely
wearisome calculation for the strain set up, but
it is given in full in The Aswan Obelisk, and shows
that even it could be supported anywhere
without straining the granite to more than
two-thirds what it can possibly stand. This is
a narrow enough margin, and to endure this
strain the granite would have to be flawless.
Although the mathematics of the Egyptians was
76 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
totally incapable of determining such stresses,
they knew very well that such a long obelisk,
if not perfectly sound, would inevitably break
during the erecting process, if not long before.
One, called Dhutiy (p. io6) , mentions in his tomb
inscription at Thebes that he erected two obelisks
of io8 cubits in length, but unless the obelisks
were much thicker than all known examples in
proportion to their length, they would not have
stood the strain of transport and erection.
The greater colossi, such as those of " Memnon "
and the gigantic granite figure of Ram esses II
in the Ramesseum, must have been erected in
much the same manner as obelisks. The notches
in the pedestals show them to have been brought
in sideways, probably when they were merely
roughed out. There must have been, of course,
slight differences in the technique of the process,
especially in the form of the funnel ; the edges
of the colossi, too, come flush with the edge cf
the pedestals with the notches well inside them.
It seems likely that, in the case of colossi, the
notch was filled with wood, on to which the
monument came down ; that is, the edge of the
colossus was protected by the raised baulk of
wood, held steady in the notch, instead of by
the notch itself. This subject needs a good deal
of further study.
One of the more surprising theories on the
erecting process, which savours somewhat of
Heath Robinson's mechanical studies, may be
of interest. This is that put forward by Auguste
Choisy in L'Art de hdtir chez les Egyptiens.
ERECTION OF OBELISKS
n
According to him the obeUsk was raised by a
series of weighted horizontal levers acting along
its length, earth being banked under the obelisk
at each heave, suitable supporting surfaces for
the fulcra of the levers, in the form of masonry
sides to the bank, being made, and heightened
as the obelisk rose. Fig. 34, taken from his book,
makes this clear.
His method of erecting is shown in figs. 35 and
36. He says : " Having arrived at a height a,
let us pass, below it,
cross-beams c and a pivot
(tourillon) n. Now noth-
ing prevents us from
getting rid of the earth
and constructing a
glissiere, or slide, g.
Having made the slide,
let us replace the re-
moved earth by sand ;
let us remove the supports c and take away the
sand. The obelisk, pivoting about n, will reach
position a", and finally attain the vertical above
its base b. It will be sufficient, to prevent it
going too far, to reserve at rf a buffer, and to
hold back the top of the obelisk by head-ropes."
He does not tell us what the tourillon is to be
made of to stand the enormous strain, nor does
he give any details as to the nature of the slide
which would allow the point of the sled to slide
over it and not jam hard. His attachment of the
obelisk on the sled and the recess in the latter for
holding back the obeUsk are quite unsupported
Fig. 34.— CHOISY'S SUGGESTION
FOR RAISING OBELISKS.
78 THE PROBLEM OF THEfOBELISKS
by any evidence. He goes on to say that the
obeHsk was lowered down on to its pedestal
by puncturing filled sand-bags which had been
packed between it and the pedestal when in
position a'". His explanation of the notch is
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 79
that it was to take a sausage-shaped bag, which
was to be punctured last, after having removed
the debris of the others. The mechanics of the
method seem to me to be quite unsound, and
the crushing of the inner edges of the pedestal-
notches and the position of Hatshepsowet's
obelisk on its pedestal are not explainable by
Choisy's theory.
It is rather difficult to say whether the
Egyptians used scale models of obelisks to deter-
mine their weights and balancing-points, and to
rehearse the erecting process. I am of opinion
that they did ; at any rate, there are quite a
number of small obelisks known ; one of Amen-
ophis II has just been found at Aswan, which
weighed under a ton. Apart from the determina-
tion of the bending stress (p. 75), the convenience
of making use of models in this way cannot have
escaped them. The final function of these small
obelisks seems to have been to place them on
either side of shrines, and especially of the
Divine Boats. We have the description of
the furniture provided for the sacred barge of
the god Amun in the time of Amenophis III.
We are told (Breasted, Ancient Records, II,
§ 888) :-
It was made very wide and large ; there is no
instance of the like being done. Its . . . is adorned
with silver, wrought with gold throughout ; the
great shrine is of electrum, so that it fills the land with
its brightness ; its bows are as bright. They bear
great crowns, and serpents twine along its two sides
to protect them. Flagstaves, wrought with electrum.
8o THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
are set up before it, with two great obelisks between
them ; it is beautiful everywhere.
A model of a temple of the time of Seti I
was found near Cairo, in which the base, which
is of gritstone, shows the sockets in which the
model pylons, colossi, obelisks and even the last
pair of the avenue-sphinxes were fixed. Although
this does not appear to have been an architect's
working-model, having probably served some
religious purpose in the temple like the tools
and implements always found in temple founda-
tion-deposits, it at least shows that the Egyp-
tians were no strangers to making models of
things other than tools, furniture and objects
of art.
I had intended to devote a chapter to the
polishing and engraving of obelisks after they
were set up, but our knowledge of the engraving of
the hard rocks is so vague that it can be summed
up in a paragraph. The details of the processes,
as given in the various works on the subject,
are not clear to me — perhaps owing to my
reprehensible habit of making experiments. The
fundamental principles are, however, tolerably
plain, and are summed up in Prof. Petrie's
Arts and Crafts in Ancient Egypt. There is no
doubt that the faces of the obelisks were dressed
by the dolerite balls until they were as flat as
possible, tests being made, as in engineering
work to-day, by putting against them a portable
flat plane smeared with red ochre and oil, or
" ruddle " as the red lead and oil, now used for
this purpose, is called. Prof. Petrie says that
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 8i
it was considered flat enough if the touches of
red ochre from the plane were not separated by
more than an inch, but I think he means this
to refer to the sarcophagi and medium-sized
monuments. In an obelisk the accuracy seems
to have been far less (p. 37). The basis of the
polishing and the engraving was most certainly
emery stone and powder. There are indications
that granite was cut with tubular drills and
sometimes sawn, but we are more than doubtful
how the emery was used. On page 72 of the
work quoted, the situation is summed up as
follows : " The difhcult question is whether the
material (emery) was used as loose powder,
or was set in the metal tool as separate teeth.
An actual example was found in the prehistoric
Greek palace of Tiryns. The hard limestone
there has been sawn, and I found a broken bit
of the saw left in a cut. The copper blade had
rusted away to green carbonate, and with it
were some little blocks of emery about a sixteenth
of an inch long, rectangular, and quite capable
of being set, but far too large to act as a loose
powder with a plain blade. On the Egyptian
examples there are long grooves in the faces of
the cuts of both saws and drills ; and grooves
may be made by working a loose powder. But,
further, the groove certainly seems to run spirally
round a core, which would show that it was cut
by a single point. . . . The large hieroglyphs
(p. 74) on hard stones were cut by copper blades
fed with emery, and sawn along the outline
by hand ; the block between the cuts was
6
82 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
broken out, and the floor of the sign was
hammer-dressed and finally ground down with
emery."
Before leaving the subject of the mechanical
details connected with obelisks it may be of
interest to inquire whether the Egyptians ever
took them down. Pliny (p. 88) tells us that,
under the Ptolemies, obelisks were moved, and
we are very certain that the Romans and
Byzantines did so on several occasions (p. no).
We have only one indication on this point,
but it is of interest, since the inclusion of the
word *' obelisks " on a pylon not only answers
the question, but makes us reconsider the usually
accepted dating of an important building. The
evidence is as follows : On the pylon of Ameno-
phis in behind the Great Hypostyle Hall at
Karnak, now known in the guide-books as
Pylon III, the king, in an inscription on the
east face, tells how wonderfully he decorated it.
The inscription concludes : — " August ... of
electrum and obelisks. ..." Now when Tutankh-
amun, some 25 years after his death, celebrated
the return to the worship of Amun, he cut reliefs
of the procession on the screen-walls of the great
colonnade of the Temple of Luxor. He shows
twice, in great detail, the pylon of Amenophis III,
with its flagstaves and scenes, but there are no
obelisks shown. During the Aten heresy all
building work in Thebes was stopped in the
temple of Amun. The inference is that Ameno-
phis III himself took them down. The only
reason for him taking them down would be
ERECTION OF OBELISKS 83
because he had the Hypostyle Hall, or at least
the central colonnade, in his mind. This is far
more likely than the supposition that Haremhab
or Ramesscs I put such a colossal piece of work in
hand, as their building activities were small.
Such a conception is quite in keeping, however,
with the character of Amenophis III. The
pillars are of typical XlXth dynasty work, so the
king must have died almost as soon as the
plan of the new building had been set out.
The explanation that he took down the obelisks
to put them in the temple of Monthu, north of
the main temple, is unlikely, as the king
would not take down his obelisks from the most
important site in Upper Egypt and put them
in a far less important place. Another indication
that the Temple of Monthu was not their destina-
tion is that the pedestals of the obelisks there
show that they were comparatively small ; to
my mind too small to have been those used before
his pylon in the main temple. Where these
obelisks actually went is rather a mystery,
imless the king took them across the river, after
having ordered a new pair for his great temple
behind the Colossi of " Memnon," which we
know was furnished with obelisks. It is gener-
ally admitted that the Grand Colonnade at
Luxor, which was completed by Tutankhamun
and usurped by Haremhab, was commenced by
Amenophis III as an addition to his own temple ;
it is therefore not unreasonable to suppose
that he also began a similar building before
his pylon at Kamak. Whether these additions
84 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
were intended by him to be hypostyle halls or
colonnades is uncertain ; I think the latter
is more probable, since Tutankhamun, from
the little we know of him, would not have done
more than complete any building he found nearly
finished. If he had found a hypostyle hall, the
columns would all have been of one height in
whatever state of completion the hall happened
to be, since it appears to have been the Egyptian
method to fill the building up with earth as the
work became higher. The transformation of a
hypostyle hall into a simple colonnade would
have been a formidable undertaking. At Karnak,
the history of the work appears to have been as
follows : Haremhab and Harnesses I carried on
with the plan of a colonnade left by Amenophis,
and, before he died, Ramesses I was able to
inscribe his name on one of the columns. When
Seti I — a great building king — came to the
throne, he changed the whole scheme, and
developed the colonnade of Amenophis III into
the Great Hypostyle Hall. All this speculation
is raised by the inclusion, on a pylon, of the word
" obelisks."
CHAPTER VII
SOME ANCIENT RECORDS
SOME idea as to the number of men employed
on the transport of stone can be obtained
from the following three accounts of expe-
ditions.
King Menthuhotpe IV, of the Xlth dynasty,
sent an expedition to the Wady Hammammat
to quarry stone for a large sarcophagus, and it
is recorded that 10,000 men were sent out there.
We are further told that it took 3,000 sailors
from the Delta Provinces to remove the lid,
which measured 13 feet 10 inches by 6 feet
5 inches by 3 feet 2| inches deep, from the quarry
to the river. The " sailors " were probably a
pressed gang of the amphibious inhabitants of
the Delta lakes. The expedition seems to have
been fortunate, as we are told that not a man
perished, not a trooper was missing, not an ass
died, and not a workman was enfeebled (Breasted,
Ancient Records, I, § 448).
In the reign of King Amenemhet III, of the
Xllth dynasty, an official, also called Amenem-
het, was sent to the same spot for 10 statues,
85
86 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
each 8 feet 8 inches high. The personnel was
made up as follows (Breasted, Ancient Records,
I, § 710) :-
Necropolis soldiers
Sailors
Quarryraen
Troops
20
30
2,000
Under Ram esses IV a large expedition was
again sent to the Wady Hammammat for
monumental stone. It numbered 8,362 persons,
and consisted of : —
High Priest of Amun, Ramesses-nakht, Director
of Works
I
Civil and military officers of rank
9
Subordinate officers
. 362
Trained artificers and artists . .
ID
Quarrymen and stonecutters . .
130
Gendarmes
50
Slaves
. 2,000
Infantry , .
. 5,000
Men from Ayan . .
800
Dead (excluded from total)
900
8,362
It will be seen from these figures that huge
numbers of men were sent far afield for monu-
ments much smaller than the Aswan obelisk.
It seems to have been the custom to use troops
on this unpleasant kind of fatigue. It might
be observed by the facetiously-minded person
that the present-day unpopularity of all recruit-
ing measures in Egypt is but an inherited race-
instinct. As there was always a garrison at
Aswan, large numbers of men would be available
SOME ANCIENT RECORDS 87
at very short notice. Another point in the above
Hst is the relatively small proportion of actual
quarrymen and stonemasons. Since the rock
in the Wady Hammammat was basalt — and
very hard — it is more than probable that the
extraction of the monuments was done by
pounding, and that the quarrymen and stone-
masons were only needed to direct the unskilled
labourers and to perform the skilled work, such
as making the wedge- slots when necessary and
to examine the quality of the rock. How much
finishing was done out in the desert we have no
means of knowing.
The record of Queen Hatshepsowet as to the
length of time spent on the Karnak obelisks
is given on pages 49 and 104.
In a papyrus known as the Papyrus Anastasi I,
which is a kind of collection of model letters
for scribes to copy, one scribe called Hori writes
to another called Amenemope hinting that he
is not up to his job. He says (Gardiner, Egyptian
Hieratic Texts, § XIII) : — " An obelisk has been
newly made . . . of no cubits (190 feet) ; its
pedestal is 10 cubits (17! feet) square, and the
block of its base makes 7 cubits in every direc-
tion ; it goes in a slope (?) towards the summit
(?) one cubit one finger, its pyramidion is one
cubit in height, its point measuring two fingers.
Combine them so as to make them into a list,
that thou mayest appoint every man needed to
drag it. . . ." Here the obelisk is extremely
long, with a ridiculously short pyramidion, and
the problem is an impossible one to solve for
88 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
anyone who is not acquainted with the results
of previous work in the quarry, and who is not
famihar with the ground to be covered. The
figures given are only sufficient to determine
the weight of the obelisk. If such a problem
was a typical one that scribes had to solve, the
conclusion is that some kind of statistical record
was kept in the archives of the various seats of
learning to which the scribes had access. In
other words, the experience of previous under-
takings was at the disposal of the scribes.
Details of the transport of the winged bull at
Nineveh are given on pages 56 and 57, and of
the transport of the statue of Dhuthotpe on
page 58.
Greek and Roman writers throw very little
light on the transport and erection of large
monuments except in giving dimensions of the
blocks transported. Herodotus, in Book II,
Chapter 175, tells us that King Amasis II
brought a building of one stone from Elephantine
which measured 34 feet 7 inches by 23 feet by
13 feet externally, and 30 feet 10 inches by
20 feet by 8 feet 4 inches internally, and that the
2,000 men appointed to convey it — who we are
told were all pilots — took three whole years to
perform their task.
Pliny, in his Natural History, Book XXXVI,
Chapter 14, gives a slightly more valuable
account of how King Ptolemy Philadelphus had
an obelisk transported to Alexandria. He tells
us that it was done by digging a canal from the
Nile to the spot where the obelisk lay, passing
SOME ANCIENT RECORDS 89
below it, so that the obehsk was supported on
either bank. Two large barges loaded with
stones were unballasted below the obelisk which,
rising, received its weight. This may well have
been true, but it was not the way in which the
Egyptians transported them, for there is no
trace of a canal near the Aswan quarries.
The Egyptians, as it has already been remarked,
have left us practically no information at all
as to how they erected their obelisks. There
is, however, a passage in the Anastasi Papyrus
which refers to the erection of a colossus, and
which is perhaps worth recording here, since
it is fairly certain that the principle of the
erection of the larger colossi was very similar
to that of the erection of an obelisk (p. 76).
The text gives : — " It is said to thee : Empty
the magazine that has been loaded with sand
under the monument of thy Lord, which has
been brought from the Red Mountain. It
makes 30 cubits stretched on the ground and
20 cubits in breadth . . . -ed with 100 chambers
(?) filled with sand from the river bank. The
... of its chambers have a breadth of 44 (?)
cubits and a height of 50 cubits, all of them
... in their . . . Thou art commanded to
remove (overturn) it in six hours." Here, owing
to errors in re-copying, and our slight knowledge
of the technical terms mentioned, we are at a
total loss as to the meaning of the second
sentence.
In the same papyrus (§ XIII) there is a refer-
ence to an embankment which may well have
go THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
been intended for the erection of an obelisk,
as the problem immediately following it is that
dealing with the transport of an obelisk, which
has already been quoted. The scribe Hori puts
the problem thus : — " There is a ramp to be
made of 730 cubits (418 yards) with a breadth
of 55 cubits (31-5 yards) consisting of 120
compartments (?) filled with reeds and beams
having a height of 60 cubits (34-4 yards) at its
summit. Its middle is 30 cubits (17-2 yards),
its batter 15 cubits (8-6 yards), its base (?) 5
cubits (2-87 yards). The quantity of bricks
for it is asked of the commander of the army.
Behold its measurements are before thee ; each
one of its compartments is 30 cubits long and
7 cubits broad. . . ." Here, as before, the
words " compartment " and " base " are of very
doubtful meaning, and it is difficult to arrive
at any definite idea on the construction of the
ramp apart from its overall measurements.
However one tries to arrange compartments in
the ramp, an impossible situation follows, so we
are compelled to believe that there is some
error in the figures due to re-copying. It is
likely that the compartments refer to the internal
division of the ramp which, as it were, is a brick
box, filled with earth for economy ; on the other
hand, the word may mean the externally visible
sections or towers always found in very large
brick walls. For full notes on these walls, see
Somers Clarke, Journal of Egyptian Archceology,
Vol. VII, p. 77.
The onlv account of the erection of an obelisk
SOME ANCIENT RECORDS 91
by the Egyptians is that given by PUny, which
cannot fail to appeal to those who have had
the fortune (?) to fall into the hands of an
Egyptian dragoman. He must have livened up
the visitors even in those days. Pliny was
told that King " Rhamsesis," when an obelisk
was being put up, feared that the machinery
employed would not be strong enough, so he had
his own son tied to the summit in order to make
the workmen more careful. If this " Rhamsesis"
was Ramesses II, the loss of a son would not
have been vital, as he is known to have had
over a hundred, to say nothing of several score
daughters !
CHAPTER VIII
A HISTORY OF CERTAIN OBELISKS AND
THEIR ARCHITECTS
^LTHOUGH the ancient records and other
/-\ notes given in this chapter are somewhat
-*- -^of a digression from the main subject
of the book — the mechanical problems connected
with obelisks — they are of interest, since they
give us glimpses, not only of the curious history
of some of the better-known obelisks, but of the
lives and characters of the men who were
responsible for their quarrying and erection.
Fortunately, the tombs of most of the obelisk-
architects are known to us, since their efforts
on behalf of their kings were usually rewarded
by the present of a tomb in the most fashionable
part of the Theban necropolis, and of a statue
in the temple. Though they were debarred
from putting the ancient version of " So-and-so
fecit " on their obelisks, they made up for it
in their tombs by recording with pride that they
had put up obelisks for the king, and they become
garrulous in recounting what good workmen
they were, and how well they treated their
subordinates, specially emphasising the rewards
they received and the titles and decorations
granted to them. But they say nothing as to
how they did their job ; it sufficed that it was
done. This omission — so strange to our minds —
92
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 93
seems to me to be due to the fact that there
was only one method of putting up an obehsk,
which was well known. It seems more than
likely, however, that full details of each piece
of work were kept for the information and
guidance of scribes.
The obelisk of Tuthmosis I, shown in the
frontispiece, which, with its now fallen fellow,
stood before his pj'lon (No. IV at Karnak), was
erected by a noble called Ineni, who also con-
structed the pylon and court of Osirid figures
behind it, and excavated the King's tomb in the
royal valley. His active life began under
Amenophis I (see Appendix II) and continued
into the second reign of Tuthmosis III, when
in co-regency with Queen Hatshepsowet. The
times in which he lived were prosperous but
stormy, especially during the latter end of his
career, when the relations between Tuthmosis III
and the Queen were more than strained. Per-
haps it is fortunate that he died before the open
rupture took place, or he might have shared,
with Sennemut and others of the Queen's party,
the hatred of Tuthmosis III when at length he
ruled alone. Ineni's sympathies clearly lay
with Hatshepsowet. In his tornb (No. 81 at
Thebes) he gives quite an entertaining account
of his life. His titles were : Pasha, Count, Chief
of all the Works in Karnak, Controller of the
Double-houses of Silver and of Gold, Sealer of
all Contracts in the House of Amun, and Excel-
lency in Charge of the Double-Granary. The
beginning of his tomb-inscription is missing, but
94 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
he appears to have been foreman on the work
of Amenophis I's gate to the south of the
Karnak temple and of his mortuary temple on
the west side. Ineni tells us [cf. Breasted,
Ancient Records, II, § 45) : —
.... its doors were erected of copper made in
one sheet ; parts of them were of electrum. I inspected
that which His Majesty made . . . (of) bronze, Asiatic
copper — collars, vessels and necklaces, I was foreman
of every work ; all offices were under my command. . . .
Inspection was made for me — I was the reckoner.
Describing the death of the king, he says : —
His Majesty, having spent his life in happiness and
the years in peace, went forth to heaven. He joined
the Sun ; he associated with Him and went forth.
Under Tuthmosis I, Ineni obtained the super-
intendence of the king's building projects, and
he begins the next part of his story by impressing
on the reader how thoroughly Egypt and Nubia
were under his authority. After recording the
new king's kindness to hina, he says : —
I inspected the great monuments which he made [a
great hall] ; with great pylons on either side of it
made of fine Ayan limestone. August flagstaves were
erected at the double fa9ade of the temple, of new fir-
trees of the best of the Terraces (Lebanon ?), whose
tips were of electrum (silver-gold alloy). ... I inspected
the putting-up of the great doorway called : Amun-
Mighty-in-Wealth ; its huge door was of Asiatic
copper, whereon was the Divine Shadow, inlaid with
gold. I inspected the erection of two obelisks . . .
and built the " august " boat of 120 cubits (206-6 feet)
in length and 40 cubits (68-86 feet) in breadth for
transporting these obelisks. They came in peace
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 95
safety and prosperity, and landed at Karnak. . . .
Its track ( ? ) was laid with every pleasant wood. I
inspected the excavations of the cliff-tomb of His
Majesty — no one seeing, no one hearing — ... I made
fields of clay for plastering the tombs of the Necropolis.
I was obliged to do a job which the ancestors had not
had done. . . .
After again assuring us that he was really
a first-class engineer, and immensely popular
into the bargain, he records the death of the
king, saying that he " rested from life, going
forth to heaven, having completed his years in
gladness of heart."
Under Tuthmosis II, Ineni seems not to have
engaged in any work of importance, and he says
that he is getting old ; but he records with pride
that he was supplied with food from the king's
own table until Tuthmosis II also died, or, as
Ineni puts it, " mingled with the gods."
During the cat-and-dog life of Hatshepsowet
and Tuthmosis III, the old courtier had retired
from all active work, but seems to have been a
keen observer of the state of the court. On
the accession of the king and queen he observes :
His (Tuthmosis H's) son stood in his place as King
of Egypt, having become ruler in the place of him who
begat him. His sister, the Divine Consort, settled the
affairs of Egypt according to her ideas. . . .
The ending of Ineni's inscription does not err
on the side of modesty. He concludes thus : —
I became great beyond words ; I will tell you about
it, ye people ; listen and do the good that I did — just
like me. I continued powerful in peace and met with
96 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
no misfortune ; my years were spent in gladness. I
was neither a traitor nor a sneak, and I did no wrong
whatever. I was foreman of the foremen, and did not
fail. ... I never hesitated, but always obeyed superior
orders . . . and I never blasphemed sacred things.
Such was the career of Ineni, whose inscription,
when analysed, is of very great inaportance
historically. If he handled oriental labour for
some forty years without blaspheming it was
not the least of his achievements.
The inscriptions on this obelisk are Uke those
of most other obelisks, and are merely the
elaborate titulary of the king and the fact of the
dedication to the god. They have no general
interest beyond giving the reign under which
it was erected. Here the middle columns only
are contemporary, the side ones being titles and
encomiums added by Ramesses IV and VI some
four centuries later. As an example of a dedi-
cation formula, the east and west sides may be
translated as follows, the north and south sides
being only titles : —
(East) Horus; Mighty Bull, beloved of Truth;
King of Upper and Lower Egypt ; Favourite of the
Two Goddesses ; Shining with the Serpent Diadem,
great in strength ; Okheperkere Setepnere ; Golden
Horus ; Beautiful in Years, who makes hearts to live ;
Bodily son of Re, Tuthmosis (I), Shining in Beauty.
He made it as his monument to his father Amun,
Lord of Thebes, Presider over Karnak, that he may
be given life, like Re, eternally.
(West) Horus; Mighty Bull, beloved of Truth,
King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Okheperkere, Setep-
Amun.
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 97
He made it as his monument to his father Amen-R6,
Chief of Egypt, erecting for him two great obelisks at
the double-fa9ade of the temple. The pyramidions
are of [electrum]. . . .
When the fragments of the companion obeHsk
were discovered, it was found that they were
inscribed, not by Tuthmosis I, but by Tuth-
mosis III. Ineni is quite clear about his having
erected two obeHsks before the pylons. From
this we deduce that after the second obelisk
had been erected, but before it was inscribed,
Tuthmosis I died. We are therefore driven to
one of two conclusions : either that the obelisk
remained uninscribed for some twenty-three
years until Tuthmosis III held the throne, being
neither usurped by Tuthmosis II nor Hat-
shepsowet — which is extremely improbable — ■
or that Tuthmosis III reigned for a certain
period before Tuthmosis II ! Strange as this
may seem, it is borne out by quite a large amount
of evidence. The probable order of the Tuth-
mosids was somewhat as follows : —
(i) Tuthmosis I either abdicates or is sup-
pressed.
(2) Tuthmosis III reigns alone, possibly as a
child, protected by a strong party.
(3) Hatshepsowet's party forces her upon
Tuthmosis III as co-regent ; he may have
acquiesced since, by marrying the heiress, he
would make his title secure.
(4) After Tuthmosis III had been on the
throne some six years in all, Tuthmosis I and II
7
98 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
seize the throne, but are unable to make
Tuthmosis HI rehnquish his claims on it.
(5) Tuthmosis I dies, and a co-regency of
Tuthmosis II and III follows, which lasts till
Tuthmosis II's death two years later.
(6) Hatshepsowet and Tuthmosis III rule
together for twelve years, until the former
either dies or is forced to retire,
(7) Tuthmosis III rules alone, and cuts out
the names of the queen and her supporters
wherever he finds them.
Even this complicated sequence does not
absolutely explain all the observed facts, and it
is still a matter of conjecture how such a state
of affairs arose. The successors of these rulers —
who seem to have thrived in spite of the most
grotesque in-breeding — have, it seems, treated
the matter as a private affair and hushed it
up, recording the order of each according to the
period in which he reigned longest, namely,
Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II and Tuthmosis III.
Hatshepsowet is omitted as, though her husband
ruled through her, she could not by custom
reign alone.
The above brief historical precis has been
included to show how a simple dedicatory
inscription may give the key to a most extra-
ordinary political situation, and to enable the
reader better to understand the conditions under
which the next four architects performed their
work.
Hatshepsowet's standing obelisk at Karnak
— the second largest survivor — was erected by
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 99
Sennemut, who was perhaps the staunches!
supporter of the queen against Tuthmosis III.
Not only did he play an important part in her
expedition to Punt (Somahland), but he was
her chief architect at Karnak, Luxor, Der
El-Bahari and Herrnonthis (Armant). So great
a favourite was he with the queen that he,
together with a noble called Ahmose-pen-Nekh-
beyet, shared between them the rearing of her
daughter, the heiress, Nefrure. A further mark
of the royal favour was that his statues were
presented to him by the queen and Tuthmosis
III — the latter, perhaps, under compulsion — to
be set up in the temple of Karnak. One of the
statues of Sennemut holding Nefrure is shown in
fig. 37. He was even included and mentioned
by name in the adoration-scene of the south
colonnade at Der El-Bahari — a most unusual
honour. Hatshepsowet's power seemed to rest
on Sennemut and two other nobles called Nehsi
(" The Sudanese ") and Dhutiy, the last being also
an expert in obelisks. Their figures are chiselled
out at Der El-Bahari and their tombs, especially
that of Sennemut (No. 71 at Thebes), were
mutilated by Tuthmosis III after the fall of the
queen. In contrast to Sennemut, Puimre, yet
another obelisk-maker, continued to work as
energetically for Tuthmosis III in later years
as for Hatshepsowet, for whom he had made
an ebony shrine. Can it be that here we have
an ancient " Vicar of Bray " ? Sennemut, at any
rate, preferred to fall with his queen.
Sennemut's tomb is almost completely
100 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
destroyed, but liis statues give the details of the
work he did. Though Tuthmosis HI cut out
his name, he left the inscription intact. It is
from here that we learn that his titles were
Pasha, Count, Royal Seal-bearer, Sole Com-
panion, Chief Steward of Amun, Chief of the
Prophets of Monthu in Armant, Controller of
the Fields, Gardens and Cattle of Amun, Chief
Steward of the King and Chief of the Peasant-
serfs. Though Hepusonb (tomb No. 8i) was
Vizier, there is no doubt that Sennemut was
the power behind the throne. The inscriptions
on his statues are of the usual formal character
and are hardly worth giving at length. On one
he says, after recording the favour of the
" King," as Hatshepsowet preferred to be
called : —
I was the greatest of the great in the whole land »
one who had audience alone in the Privy Council. I
was the real favourite of the King. ... I was foreman
of the foremen ; superior of the great. ... I was one
to whom the affairs of Egypt were reported. That
which the South and North contributed was sealed by
me ; the labour of all countries was under my charge.
Then follows an appeal to all living men upon
earth, who see his statue, to say the usual prayer
for his ka or double, and the inscription con-
cludes : —
I was a noble who was obeyed ; moreover, I had
access to all the writings of the prophets ; there was
nothing which I did not know concerning what had
happened since the beginning.
He shows his knowledge of the classics by
Fig. 37.— statue OF SENNEmCt, ARCHITECT OF HATSHEPSOWET'S
OBELISKS, HOLDING HER DAUGHTER NEFRURE, TO WHOM HE WAS
TUTOR.
lOO]
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS loi
quoting an archaic formula which had long fallen
into disuse.
His second statue, which is that of the illustra-
tion on page lOO, has a more condensed inscrip-
tion. In it he refers to his tutorship, and says
how he " entered into all the wonderful plans
of the Mistress of Egypt." Here, curiously
enough, he says that his engineering appoint-
ment was due to " Him," although the feminine
pronoun is maintained elsewhere in the inscrip-
tion for Hatshepsowet. Possibly this statue was
presented when his relations with Tuthmosis III
were still fairly amicable.
We know nothing of Sennemiit's parents
except their names, which were Ramose and
Henufer. His brother Senmen, however, was a
very influential and powerful noble, and his
tomb was also wrecked by Tuthmosis III.
Sennemut has left an inscription on the rocks
at Aswan where he appears adoring the queen.
After giving her titles and his own, he records : —
. . . Sennemiit came in order to conduct the work
of two great obelisks [on the feast of] A-Myriad-of-
Years. It took place according to that which was
commanded — everything was done — because of the
fame of Her Majesty.
The vertical inscriptions on the great obelisk
of Hatshepsowet at Karnak are merely titles and
laudatory phrases, and give no information at
all of the character of the queen or the history
of her times. The south, west and north sides
give the elaborate titulary, and express the love
102 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
that the god Amen-Re bore her. At the end of
the text on the east face she says : —
She repeated the action of her father, Tuthmosis (I),
in erecting obehsks, so that her name might also hve
for ever.
The inscriptions round the base of the standing
obehsk are considerably more important, and are
now considered to be the finest examples of the
language of the period. The following is a
translation : —
(South side) May the Horus (fern.) live . . . (the
full titulary follows) . . . daughter of Amen-Re, his
favourite, his only one, who exists through him, the
splendid part of the All-Lord, whose beauty the Spirits
of Heliopolis fashioned ; who has taken the land like
" The Begetter," whom he has created to wear his
Diadem, who exists like Khepri (the god of the Rising
Sun) who shines with crowns like " Him-of-the-
Horizon " ; the pure egg, the excellent seed, whom
the two Sorceresses (Isis and Nephthys) reared, whom
Amun himself caused to appear upon his throne in
Armant, whom he chose to protect Egypt to defend
the people ; the Horus, avenger of her father (Osiris),
the eldest daughter of the " Bull-of-his-Mother " (a
sun-god), whom Re begat to make for himself excellent
seed upon earth for the well-being of the people ; his
living image, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Makere
(Hatshepsowet's throne-name), the " electrum " of
kings.
She made them as her monument to her father
Amun, Lord of Thebes, Presider over Karnak, making
for him two great obelisks of enduring granite from
the south ; their summits are of electrum of the best
of every country, and are seen on both sides of the
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 103
river. Their rays flood the Two Lands when the sun
rises between them as he dawns in the horizon of
heaven.
I have done this from a loving heart for my father
Amun, I have entered into his scheme for his first
jubilee; I was wise by his excellent spirit and forgot
notliing of that which he exacted. (West side.)
My Majesty knows that he is divine.
^I did it under his command : it was he who
led me.
I conceived no works without his doing : it was
he who gave me directions.
I slept not because of his temple : I erred not
from that which he commanded.
My heart was wise before my father : I entered
into the affairs of his heart.
I turned not my back on the City of The All-
Lord : but turned to it the face.
I know that Karnak is the horizon upon earth, the
August Ascent of the Beginning, the Sacred Eye of
the All-Lord, the place of his heart, which wears his
beauty, and encompasses those who follow him.
Thus saith the King : "I have set it before the
people who shall be in after ages, and whose hearts
shall consider this monument which I made for my
father (an obscure phrase follows). ... I sat in the
palace, I remembered him who fashioned me ; my
heart led me to make for him two obelisks of electrum
whose points mingled with heaven, in the august
colonnade between the two great pylons of the King,
the Mighty Bull, King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
Okheperkere (Tuthmosis I) the deceased Horus. . . ."
O ye people (north side) who shall see my monument
^ The phrasing of these five hnes, it will be noticed, bears a
striking resemblance to that of the Psalms.
104 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
in after years, those who shall speak of that which I
have made beware lest ye say, " I know not, I know
not why this was done — a mountain fashioned entirely
from gold as if it were an everyday occurrence." *I
swear, as Rd loves me, as my father Amun favours me,
as my nostrils are filled with life, as I wear the White
Crown, as I appear in the Red Crown, as Horns and
Set have united their halves in me, as I rule this land
like the Son of Isis {i,e., Horus), as I have become
strong like the Son of Nut (Osiris), as Re sets in the
Boat of the Evening, and as He rises in the Boat of
the Morning, as He joins his two Mothers (Isis and
Nephthys — a confusion of the myths of Re and Osiris)
in the Divine Boat, as Heaven abides, as that which
He made endures, as I shall be unto eternity like an
Imperishable Star, as I shall go down into the west
like Atum (the god of the Setting Sun), so surely these
two great obelisks, which My Majesty hath wrought
with electrum for my father Amun, that my name may
abide in this temple eternally, are of one block of
enduring granite without seam or joining. . . . My
Majesty exacted work on them from the (regnal)
year 15, the first of the sixth month (of the absolute
year) until the year 16, the last of the twelfth month,
making seven months of exaction in the mountain.
(East side) I did it for him in fidelity of heart, as
a king to a god. It was my desire to make them for
him, gilded with electrum. ... I thought how people
would say that my mouth was excellent because of
that which came from it, for I did not turn back from
what I had said. Hear ye ! I gave for them of the
finest electrum, which I had measured by the hekct
1 Although previously she had said that the tip was of
electrum, it looks as if it was completely overlaid. This is
perhaps why she swears so solemnly that they are of one piece,
as the overlaying might well conceal a joint.
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 105
(5 litres, or just over a gallon) like sacks of grain. In
quantity, My Majesty gave more than all Egypt had
ever seen. The ignorant, like the wise, knoweth it.
Let not him who shall hear this say that what I have
said is a lie, but rather let him say : " How like her
it is who is truthful in the sight of her father ! "
The God knew it in me, Amen-Re, Lord of Thebes.
He caused that I should reign over the Black and the
Red land as a reward therefor. I have no enemy in
any land ; all countries are my subjects. He has
made my boundary to the end of heaven ; the circuit
of the Sun has laboured for me . . . (an obscure phrase
follows). ... I am in truth his daughter who glorifies
him. . . . Life, stability and satisfaction be upon the
Horus Throne of the Living, like R6, eternally !
At some period in the history of this obelisk,
masonry was built all round it right up to the
roof of the hall. This looks hke the work of
Tuthmosis III, as the queen would never have
covered up her inscription in this way. The
difficulty is that the side scenes (see frontispiece)
are unfinished, only reaching from the top to
about half-way down the obeHsk. An accurate
knowledge of the Tuthmosid succession is neces-
sary before the history of the obeHsk can be
fully understood. Another curious point is that
the shaft of the fallen obelisk had been usurped
by Tuthmosis III, while in the standing obelisk
the queen's name is untouched. In the pedestal
inscription of the fallen obelisk, which is in
fragments, the queen records that her kingdom
reached Punt on the south, the Asiatic marshes
on the east, and the legendary mountains of
Manu on the west. Her northern boundary is no
io6 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
longer legible. She also recounts on it the
wonderful tribute which was remitted to Egypt
in her reign.
Another obelisk-architect under this queen
was one Dhutiy, whose tomb (No. ii at Thebes)
has been mutilated by Tuthmosis HL Among
his many titles were Director of Works and
Controller of the Double-houses of Silver and
Gold. The great work by which he is known is
the systematic recording of the treasures from
the Punt expedition, and he appears — busily
taking notes — in the reliefs in the temple of
Der El-Bahari. As has been remarked, he was
openly of the queen's party, and suffered in
consequence. In addition to his recording work,
he appears to have made gateways, shrines,
thrones and small furniture for the temple of
Karnak, and erected two great obelisks of io8
cubits (i86 feet) high. We have no idea at all
as to where these obelisks were placed ; further,
it seems that such a high obelisk could not with-
stand its own weight during its transport and
erection (p. 76), unless it was vastly thicker
proportionately than all others, so it has been
suggested that the length given is the total
length of the pair when placed butt to butt
on the giant barge. It is more likely that the
figure is an error in transcription from the
cursive notes from which the tomb-inscriptions
were copied.
Puimre, whose name has already been men-
tioned in connection with Sennemut, although
he had done certain pieces of work for Queen
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 107
Hatshepsowet, managed to retain the favour of
Tuthmosis III when he reigned alone. In his
tomb (No. 39 at Thebes, lately restored) he
states that he erected two obelisks for Tuthmosis
III at Karnak. By a process of elimination, it
is likely that they were those which stood before
Pylon VII at Karnak. Judging from the base
measurements of the eastern fragment, they
must have stood between 94 and 115 feet high,
that is, higher than the great obelisk of Hat-
shepsowet at Karnak, and only equalled by the
Lateran obelisk at Rome (pages 30 and 108).
The fragments of the companion obelisk have
just been unearthed by the Antiquities Depart-
ment and the foundations of the western pedestal
exposed. Puimre's inscriptions are of Uttle
interest. He tells us that he put up the obelisks
(though he gives no measurements), that he
made a limestone building and an ebony shrine,
and that he recorded the tribute brought in
from Watet-Hor, probably a frontier on the
Asiatic side of the Delta. His titles were Pasha,
Count, Sole Companion, Royal Seal-Bearer and
Divine Father. A statue of him was found
during the excavations in the temple of Mut at
Karnak.
The obeHsks of Tuthmosis III, which were
placed before the two which Ineni had erected
for Tuthmosis I, thus forming a compact little
group of four, seem to have been the work of
Menkheperra-sonb, a name meaning something
like " Here's to Tuthmosis III ! " These are
shown being presented to Amun on a relief by
io8 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
the side of the sanctuary of Karnak, of which
a photograph is given in fig. 38, as the inscrip-
tions here tally almost exactly with those still
visible on the picture of the obelisk in his tomb
(No. 86 at Thebes) and with the fragments of
those lying between Pylons HI and IV. His
father appears to have been the powerful vizier
Rekhmire (tomb No. 100). His statue, too, has
been found at Karnak. He was, among others,
Controller of the Silver House and the Gold
House, High Priest of Amun, and Director
General of Craftsmen. In his tomb, he says
that he made two shrines — one of a single block
of granite — and a colonnade. His work in
connection with obelisks is recorded as follows : —
I inspected when His Majesty erected obelisks and
numerous flagstaves for his father Amun. I pleased
His Majesty while conducting the work on his monu-
ments.
The largest standing obelisk known is that
which now stands in front of the church of
S. Giovanni in Laterno at Rome (for dimensions
see p. 30). We are not certain whether it was
erected by Puimre, Menkheperra-sonb or another.
It was made for Tuthmosis III, but he appears
to have died after it had reached its site and
before it was erected. His grandson, Tuthmosis
IV, piously engraved and erected it before
Pylon VIII at Karnak. It never had a fellow,
and it is expressly stated that it was the first
case of a single obelisk being erected. Tuth-
mosis IV put it up in his grandfather's name,
adding his own account of its history on the side
Fig. 3S.— king TUTHMOSIS III PRESENTS OBELISKS, FLAGSTAVES AND BOOTY
FROM PALESTINE TO THE GOD AMEN-Re, KARXAK.
108I
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 109
columns of the shaft. Since the inscriptions
are chiefly titles and encomiums, it will suffice to
give the relevant portions which refer to its
history. In the centre inscription on the south
side we read : —
Tuthmdsis (III) made it as his monument to his
father Amen-R6, Lord of Thebes, erecting for him a
single obelisk in the forecourt of the temple over
against Karnak, as a first instance of erecting a single
obelisk in Thebes. . . .
Tuthmosis IV gives the previous history on
the left column of the south side. After giving
his titles, etc., he says : —
Tuthmosis (IV). It was His Majesty who beautified
the enormous single obelisk, which was one his father
{i.e., ancestor) . . . Tuthmosis III had brought, after
His Majesty had found this obelisk lying on its side,
having passed 35 years in the hands of the craftsmen
on the south side of Karnak. My father commanded
that I should erect it for him, I, his son, his saviour.
Tuthmosis IV goes on, with pride, to say that
he engraved it with the name of his father.
To our eyes it was his bounden duty, but it is
certain that very few kings, except perhaps Seti I,
would have done it.
The next thing we hear of this obelisk is its
transport from Thebes to Alexandria in a.d. 330
under the reign of Constantine the Great, who
intended to send it to Byzantium. About a.d.
357 his son Constantius took it to Rome, and set
it up in the Circus Maximus. In 1587 it was
discovered there broken in three pieces and was
set up at its present site by Domenico Fontana in
no THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
1588. Whether it was removed from Egypt in
a complete state or broken as it is now we have
no means of knowing.
The great obehsk at Constantinople was taken
from Thebes to Alexandria, it is believed, by
Constantine the Great (a.d. 306-337), and there
is a record that the Emperor Julian (a.d. 360-363)
addressed a letter to the people of Alexandria
urging them to forward the shaft to its destina-
tion and promising them a colossal statue of
himself in return. It was erected in Constanti-
nople by the Emperor Theodosius about a.d. 390.
It originally stood in Karnak, and may well have
been the w^ork of Menkheperra-sonb. The
bottom of the shaft is missing, so that it does
not stand at its original height. Some have
supposed that it was the top part of the 108-cubit
obehsks recorded by Dhutiy (p. 106), but those
were of the time of Hatshepsowet, and this
is clearly of Tuthmosis III. It may be the
upper part of one of those which stood between
Pylons III and IV. Its inscriptions are without
interest.
The " Cleopatra's Needles " at London and
New York originally formed a pair in the temple
of Heliopolis, and were removed to Alexandria
in 13-12 B.C. by the Athenian (?) architect
Pontius. One (now in London) apparently fell
from its pedestal early in the fourteenth century.
The only explanation I can give as to how it
escaped breaking is that there was a considerable
accumulation of sand around the base and in its
neighbourhood which let it down gently. The
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS iii
inscriptions on both these obehsks are only
titles and laudatory phrases and have no
interest at all. They were erected by Tuthmosis
III and spoilt by the additions, in side columns,
of the titles of Ramesses II. Their original
architect is unknown. Pontius has, however,
left us a brief inscription on the bronze cramps —
shaped like crabs — which he inserted at each
broken corner to give it additional support.
These inscriptions in Greek and Latin read
(according to Breasted) : —
L IH KAI2AP2 ANNO XVIH CESARIS
BAPBAP02 ANEGHKE BARBARVS PR^F
APXITEKTON OYNTOS yEGYPTI POSVIT
nONTIOr ARCHITECTANTE PONTIC
The history of their erections in New York
and London is given on pages 117 and 121.
The Arab writer 'Abd El-Latif, in about a.d.
1 190, when he visited Heliopolis, saw two great
obelisks there, one standing and the other lying
broken. Less than three centuries earlier both
are reported to have been standing, adorned
with their copper caps. For many centuries the
second obelisk has been missing, the only one
remaining being that of Senusret I, of which a
photograph is shown in fig. 2, p. 18. While I
was excavating there for the British School
of Archaeology in 191 2, under Prof. Flinders
Petrie, we found fragments of the second
obelisk quite close to it under the cultivation.
The second obelisk was not of the Xllth dynasty,
but of Tuthmosis III. These fragments have
been arranged round the pedestal of the standing
112 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
obelisk. (See Petrie, Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar
and Shurafa.) Gorringe, in his Egyptian Obelisks,
gives all the accounts of mediaeval authors on
the subject of the obelisks of Heliopolis.
During the XlXth dynasty our records about
obelisks and their architects are fewer, though
we know that many of them were erected. That
in front of the Temple of Luxor, shown in fig. 39,
whose fellow is now in the Place de la Concorde,
Paris, was erected by a man called Beknek-
honsu, whose tomb (No. 35 at Thebes) and whose
statue, now at the Glyptothek, Munich, give us
a great deal of information about his career.
His autobiography is so clear that it can be given
almost verbatim : —
The Pasha, Count, High Priest of Amun, Beknek-
honsu says : I was a truthful witness, profitable to his
lord, extolling the instruction of his god . . . and
performing the ceremonies in his temple. I was
Chief Overseer of Works in the House of Amun, satis-
fying the excellent heart of his lord,
O all ye people, take heed in your hearts ; ye who
are on earth who shall come after me through millions
and millions of years. ... I will inform you of my
character while I was on earth, in every office which I
administered since my birth.
I passed four years as an infant.
I passed 12 years as a youth, being chief of the
training stable of King Menmire (Seti I).
I acted as priest of Amun for 4 years.
I acted as Divine Father for 12 years,
I acted as third prophet of Am<in for 15 years.
I acted second prophet of Amun for 12 years.
He favoured me and distinguished me because of my
'.•If
Fig. 39.— obelisk OF RAMESSES II, TEMPLE OF LUXOR.
(Its fellow is now at the Place de la Concorde, Paris.)
112]
' t T .- '.-■ir^'-'. '■'^'. '' ■ %- ''1. ^ «-'.
I-iG. 40.— CONTEMPORARY SCULPTURE OF PYLON OF RAMESSES II IN THE TEMPLE
OF LUXOR, SHOWING OBELISKS, FLAGSTANES AND COLOSSI.
(Page 1:3.)
1J2]
OBELISKS AND THEIR ARCHITECTS 113
rare talent, and appointed me High Priest of Amiin for
27 years.
I was a good father to my serf-labourers, training
their classes, giving a hand to him who was in trouble
and preserving alive him who had met with misfor-
tune. ... I was Chief Overseer of Works in Thebes
for his (Seti's) son, Ramesses (II), who made monuments
for his father Amun, who had placed him on the throne.
I made for him a temple called : Ramesses-Meriamun-
is-a-Hearer-of-Petitions, at the upper portal of the
House of Amun. I erected obelisks of granite therein,
whose beauty approached heaven, A stone wall was
before it over against Thebes. I made very great
doors of electrum. ... I hewed very great flagstaves
and I erected them in the august forecourt before the
temple.
A contemporary sculpture of the pylon, with
its obelisks and flagstaves, is shown in fig. 40.
Beknekhonsu concludes : —
I made great barges ... for Amun, Mut and
Khonsu (the Theban triad) ; I, the Pasha and High
Priest of Amun, Beknekhonsu.
An account of the removal in modern times
of the missing obelisk is given on page 116. It
is a curious fact that the two were not exactly
of the same height.
It must not be imagined that obelisks were
made almost exclusively in the XVIIIth and
XlXth dynasties. In Rome and elsewhe e
there are obelisks and fragments of obelisks of
many other kings, including Psammetikhos,
Hophra, and even the Roman emperors Hadrian
and Domitian.
8
CHAPTER IX
REMOVALS OF OBELISKS IN MODERN
TIMES
A LTHOUGH the removals of obelisks from
/-\ Egypt in recent times give us very little
•*- -^information which might help us to under-
stand the methods of the ancients, a brief
account of them is of interest if only for the
contrast ; it makes us appreciate the work of
the Egyptians the more, especially when we
bear in mind that every method used in modern
days for the lowering and erection of an obelisk
— which has never exceeded 331 tons in weight —
always taxed the strength of the tackle to the
utmost ; in each case it was onty just strong
enough. Every modern removal has been a
nine days' wonder, and a ponderous tome has
appeared about it, yet the Egyptians, we know
for a fact, set up obelisks of over 550 tons, and —
if we are to believe their records — of more than
800 tons, without troubling to put on record
how they did it.
The obelisks which we will deal with here are
now known as the Vatican, the Paris, the London
and the New York obelisks. The countries
of the last two both claim their own to be the
one and original " Cleopatra's Needle," though
why they should be so keen on this title I cannot
imagine, since they were both made by Tuth-
mosis III some 14 centuries earlier.
114
REMOVALS OF OBELISKS 115
The Vatican obelisk had been taken from
Egypt in Roman times, and it was moved in
A.D. 1586 by Domenico Fontana from the Circus
of Nero at Rome to the Piazza di San Pietro,
where it now stands, incongruously decorated
— like most of the other obelisks in Italy — with
a brazen cross. The removal was performed by
order of Pope Sixtus V. The method used was
the heroic one of lifting it bodily by systems of
pulleys actuated by a large number of capstans.
The pulleys were slung from a gigantic tower of
wood, popularly known as " Fontana's Castle,"
which was made of compound wooden baulks
over a yard square in section. The pulleys
were attached to the obelisk at four points along
its length, the inscriptions being protected by
matting and planks. The obelisk was first
raised sufficiently high, being wedged at the same
time from below, to enable a " cradle," or plat-
form on rollers, to be introduced underneath it.
It was then lowered on to the cradle and pulled
to its new site, first down an inclined plane and
thence on level ground. The erecting was per-
formed in exactly the reverse manner to the
lowering. The whole story, as translated by
Lebas in his L'Ohelisque de Louxor, is distinctly
diverting, and I cannot resist giving two extracts.
He tells us (p. 178) : " Public curiosity . . .
attracted a large number of strangers to Rome,
and a bando of the Pope, published two days
before, punished by death anybody who did not
respect the barrier. . . . On the 30th April,
two hours before daylight, two masses were
ii6 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
celebrated to implore the light of the Holy Spirit.
Fontana, with all his staff, communicated. . . .
On the eve of the lowering he had been blessed
by the Holy Father. ..." Before the work
began Fontana told his workmen : " The work
we are about to undertake is consecrated to
religion, the exaltation of the Holy Cross " ;
thereon everyone recited with Fontana a Pater
and an A ve. The ceremony was made interesting
for the spectators by the presence of some
" familiars " of the Church, whose duty it was
to administer summary punishment to anyone
who misbehaved. Absolute silence for work-
men and spectators was ordered, and the story
is still told of a workman who disregarded the
order at a critical moment, when the ropes had
become slack and could be tightened no further.
He cried : " Wet the ropes ! " — which was done,
and the situation saved. For his initiative he
is said to have had an annuity granted to him-
self and his descendants by the Pope.
The removal of the obelisk from Luxor
Temple to the Place de la Concorde in Paris is
perhaps the worst of these gross acts of van-
dalism, since the Luxor obelisks were the only
pair still standing in their original position. It
was done by an engineer called Lebas in 1836.
The obelisk was lowered and raised by means
of a huge compound sheers, consisting of five
members, or struts, on each side of it. The
power was supplied by systems of pulleys
worked by capstans. The model shown in
fig. 41 makes this method clear as regards the
Tig. 41. MODl-.I- SH()\V1N(, MOW rill-. I'AKIS ol'.KI.lSK WAS I.OWKRIU) AN1>
IvKKCTED.
{Pa!;e lift.)
Fi<i. 42. -MODEL TO SHOW HOW THi: I.OWICKIXG AND THK KAIS1N(; OF THE NEW-
YORK OBELISK WERE PERFORMED.
(I'dgi- 117.)
116]
REMOVALS OF OBELISKS 117
appearance and position of the sheers, and the
way in which the obehsk was slung from them,
but only one capstan and system of pulleys is
shown here. The obelisk was lowered on to a
wooden cradle, on which it was dragged over a
greased way, without rollers, to the Nile.
There a pontoon-raft, with its prow temporarily
removed, was waiting to receive it. The raft
was towed home, the prow again removed
and the obelisk dragged to the Place de la
Concorde on its cradle, being finally brought
up a slope leading up to the surface of the
high pedestal on which it was to be erected.
Though the obelisk weighed but 227 tons, it
took a pull of 94 tons from the capstans to
move it up the gradual incline. The edge of
the obelisk was made to rest over the pedestal-
notch, in which it engaged as it rose towards
the vertical. Lebas's book, which is now very
rare, is extremely interesting, giving many
dehghtful sketches of some of the ludicrous
situations met with in the course of the work,
and of the cheery way in which the party over-
came their difficulties, which ranged from an
epidemic of plague to a shortage of wood.
The New York obelisk originally formed a
pair with the London obelisk in a temple at
Heliopolis, near Cairo, and both had been
moved in Roman times to Alexandria, close to
the beach (see p. no). The English took the
one which was lying in the sand, leaving the
Americans the other, which was standing on
its pedestal. At an earlier stage of its history
ii8 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
all four edges had been broken away, and four
copper cramps — shaped like sea-crabs — had been
put at the corners to support it more firmly.
In modern times only two of the crabs remained,
the others having been stolen and blocks of
stone put in their stead. The method of lower-
ing the obelisk was ingenious in the extreme.
The obelisk was first fitted with a pair of huge
steel trunnions (similar to those seen on a toy
cannon by means of which it can pivot around
its centre). The trunnions were left loose until
two steel towers had been constructed on either
side of the obelisk, as shown in the model in
fig. 42, to act as a support for them. A strong
steel plate was passed under the butt of the
obelisk and attached by a series of stout steel
bars or " tension-rods," which could be shortened
by screwing. Whether there was originally a
space below the centre of the butt, or whether
the obelisk was raised by jacks or rams placed
under the four rounded-off corners, I am uncer-
tain. (The plate and the tension-rods can best
be seen in fig. 43.) The tension-rods were
shortened by screwing, and the obelisk thus
pulled clear off its pedestal, being supported
by, and sliding through, the trunnion. The
trunnion, which was arranged to be at the
balancing-point of the obeUsk when it was
sufficiently high, was next bolted tight and the
obelisk itself braced by long rods, passing, as
shown in the model, over a stiff support at its
centre. From this position it was intended to
let the point of the obelisk come slowly round
I-iG. 43. -LO\VHRI\(; OF THE NHW YORK OBELISK. TOWERS AND TRUNNIONS
ABOUT TO BE REMOVED.
(Huge 118.)
K:g. 44. -LOWERING OF THE NEW YORK OBELISK. REMOVTN(, THE WOODEN
BAULKS FROM E.\CH END ALTERN.VFELV.
[Page 119.)
ii3]
REMOVALS OF OBELISKS 119
until it rested on a crib of wooden baulks (seen
to the left in fig. 42). What actually happened
was that, owing to a miscalculation of the
balancing-point, the tip crashed down, breaking
the holding-back ropes. It splintered about
three courses of baulks and escaped breaking
by a miracle. Another crib of baulks was next
built below the butt, as shown in fig. 43. The
next step was to remove the towers and the
trunnions ; this was done by taking the weight
of the obelisk off them by raising the point by
oil-rams placed within the wooden crib. For
those unacquainted with rams, it may be
explained that they are appliances by which a
great lifting force can be obtained for a short
distance by means of oil compressed into them
by a pump. A " jack," which enables one man
to lift up the back of a heavy motor, has a
similar function. In the model shown, the
jack is actuated by hand through a bowden
wire. Fig. 43 shows the weight of the obelisk
being taken by the ram, so that the towers and
trunnions can be removed. This being done,
the rams are released and the obelisk comes
down on to the crib. The rams are then used
from each crib in turn, lifting the tip or butt
so that a course of baulks can be removed and
the obelisk gently lowered on to the course
below. Fig. 44 shows the obelisk when it has
nearly arrived at the ground.
It had originally been intended to convey the
obelisk through the streets of Alexandria to the
harbour, but the inhabitants, especially the
120 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
European community, who had opposed the
removal strenuously, influenced the Municipal
Council to forbid this. A special wooden slide
had therefore to be constructed so that the
obelisk, which was to be put in a wooden
caisson, could be pulled down it to the sea, and
floated round to the harbour instead. At the
harbour it was introduced into a steamship
called the Dessoug, by opening a port in her
bows. The journey to America was compara-
tively uneventful, and between the harbour and
Central Park it did the longer journeys by rail
and the shorter journeys rolling on cannon-balls
running in U-shaped " channel-irons " ; i.e.,
cannon-balls were used as ball-bearings ! At
Central Park the erection was performed, with
elaborate ceremonial, under the auspices of the
Freemasons.
The method of erection was exactly the
reverse of that used for the lowering, and it
was carried out without a hitch on January 22,
1881, or just about 2 J years after the London
obelisk was set up. The work done was under
the direction of Lt. -Commander H. H. Gorringe,
U.S. Navy.
Those who desire a complete account of al
the removals of obelisks in mediaeval and
modern times cannot do better than consult
Gorringe, Egyptian Obelisks, from which much
of the information in this chapter has been
taken. This book was published to celebrate
the erection of the New York obelisk, and will
form a most excellent textbook for future
REMOVALS OF OBELISKS 121
removals, in case it is decided to present the
remaining Egyptian obelisks to Yugo-Slovakia,
Liberia and the like. The question of transport
is the book's real drawback, as its size almost
demands a sled and rollers !
The London obelisk had only to be trans-
ported and erected, since it was already lying
unbroken in the sand at Alexandria. The
principle of the erecting process was the same
as that used for the New York obelisk, except
that, instead of the trunnions, steel shoulders
with " knife-edge " bearing surfaces were used.
These engaged in a huge wooden scaffolding
instead of on the two steel towers. For trans-
porting it by water it was enclosed in a steel
shell, fitted, like a ship, with deck and mast.
It even had watertight compartments. The
" ship " was named the Cleopatra, and she set
out from Egypt on the 21st of September, 1877.
She steered very badly, and in a gale near
Cape St. Vincent the steamship Olga, which
was towing her home, had to cut the " august
barge " adrift. Six sailors, who tried to reach
the Cleopatra to secure her ballast, perished in
the heavy sea. The Olga then lost the Cleo-
patra, and, imagining she had foundered, she
steamed home. The Cleopatra, however, had not
foundered at all, and was salved by a ship called
the Fitzmaurice, who towed her into Ferrol. A
claim for £5,000 salvage was reduced by the
Admiralty Courts to £2,000. Having arrived
in the Thames on January 20th, 1878, the
obelisk was brought right up beside the site on
122 THE PROBLEM OF THE OBELISKS
the Thames Embankment where it now stands,
being grounded at high tide. After the shell
had been cut away, the lifting on to the Embank-
ment was done almost entirely by hydraulic
jacks.
At its erection, which took place in September,
1878, an extraordinary collection of objects was
put in the base of this obelisk, which ranged
from sets of coinage, newspapers and standard
works, to a Mappin's shiUing razor, an Alexandra
feeding-bottle, a case of cigars and photographs
of a dozen pretty Englishwomen for the benefit
of posterity !
What would the feelings of Tuthmosis III
have been when he ordered these obehsks for
the god Re, had he known that one would be
taken to a land of whose existence he never
dreamed, and that the other would fall into the
hands of what was then a savage people, and,
after undergoing such vicissitudes as shipwreck
and injuries from a German air-bomb, would
still be standing, though thousands of miles
away, after a lapse of nearly 3,500 years ?
APPENDIX I
Dates of Egyptian Kings Mentioned in the
Volume
Although the dates of the kings of the XVIIIth
dynasty and onwards are known with great accuracy,
there is a difference of opinion among scholars as to
the dates of the kings between the 1st and the Xllth
dynasties, which depends on whether the dark period
between the Xllth and XVIIIth dynasties — which
includes the Hyksos invaders — ^was long or short.
Both the " long dating " and the " short dating "
are given here.
XIth Dynasty
L.D. B.C. S.D.
Menthuhotpe IV (?) . . . . . . 3592
2002
XIIth Dynasty (Complete)
(Amenemhet I . . . . . . . . 2778
2000)
Senusret I . . . . . . . . 2758
1980
(Amenemhet II . . . . . . . . 2716
1938)
(Senusret II . . . . . . . . 2684
1906)
(Senusret III . . . . . . , . 2660
1887)
Amenemhet III.. .. .. .. 2622
1849
(Amenemhet IV . . . . . . . . 2758
1801)
(Sebeknefrure . . . . . . . . 2569
1792)
123
124
APPENDIX
XVIIIth Dynasty (Complete)
{Ahm6se I, " Amasis "I
Amenophis I . . . .
Tuthmdsis I
Tuthm6sl3 II ..
Tuthm6sis III and Hatsheps6wet
Amenophis II . .
Tuthra6sis IV
Amenophis III
Amenophis IV, the heretic King Akhenaten
SakerS
Tutankhamen
Ay (Eye)
1580-1557)
}i557-i5oi
|i5oi-
1447
1447-1420
1420-1411
1411-1375
ri375-i35o
XIXth Dynasty (Complete)
Haremhab
. 1350-1315
Ramesses I . .
. 1315-1314
Seti I . .
. 1313-1292
Ramesses II . .
1292-1225
(Merneptah
. 1225-1215)
(Amenmose
. 1215)
(Siptah . ,
. 12 15-1209)
Seti II
XXth Dynasty
. 1209-1205
Ramesses IV . .
. .
1167-1161
Ramesses VI , .
XXVlTH Dynasty
. 1157-1142
Psammetikhos II
. . . .
. 593-588
Hophra
. 588-569
Amasis II
Ptolemaic
. 56^525
Ptolemy II, Philadelphus
286-247
APPENDIX II
Vocalisations of Egyptian Words.
The following variations in the transcription of
ancient Egyptian and other names and words have
been given to mitigate the sufferings of the general
reader, who is appalled and annoyed by the great
diversity of ways in which the ancient words are spelt,
not only in the guide-books but in technical publica-
tions. As it has been noted in the preface, the method
followed here has been to retain the Greek form if
there are many variations and it seems passably close
to the ancient pronunciation, otherwise to attempt to
reconstruct its pronunciation in accordance with recent
researches. This is the method used by the English
philological school, as a supplement to the consonantal
skeletons in use for all grammatical work throughout
Europe and America.
The diacritical marks to show the different A's, s's,
etc., have been omitted.
Key : — R. — Reconstructions.
G. — Greek forms.
X. — No data for vowels.
O. — Old style, which represents the ancient conso-
nants and semi-vowels by a, a, a, u. If the
word is still unpronounceable an e is added at
any convenient place.
Those unmarked can mostly be proved Incorrect.
125
126
APPENDIX
'Ahm6se
'Ahmose-pen-Nekhbeyet (R.)
AmenemhSt (R.)
Amenem6pet (R.) . .
Amen6phis (G.)
Amen-Re' (R.)
Amun (R.) . .
Amasis (G.) ; Amosis (G.) ;
Aahmes.
Ahmose - pen - nekhbet (R.) ;
Aahmes-pen-nekhbet.
Amenemmes (G.) ; Amenemhat
(O.).
Amenemapt (O.) ; Amenappa
(from cuneiform).
Amenothes (G.) ; Amenophthis
(G.) ; Amenhotpe (R.) ;
Amenhotep (R.) ; Amenhe-
tep (O.).
Amunre (R.) ; Amen-Ra (O.) ;
Ammon-Ra.
Amon (R.) ;
Amen (O.)
Ammon (G.)
Amoun (Copt).
(This becomes " Amen- " when unaccented.)
Aswan (modern use)
Aten (X.) ..
Beknekhonsu (R.) . .
Dhuthotpe (R.)
iDhutiy (R.) . .
Haremhab (R.)
Hatsheps6wet (R.)
Hepusonb (R.)
Ineni (R.X.)
Khepri (X.)
Makere' (R.)
Menkheperra'-sonb (R.)
Menmire' (R.)
Menthuhotpe (R.) . .
Syene (G.) ; Assouan (Fr.) ;
Asswan.
Aton (X.) ; Adon (X.).
Bakenkhonsu (O.) ; Bekenk-
hensu (O.).
Dhuthotep (R.) ; Thuthotep
(R.) ; Tehutihetep (O.).
Thutiy (R.) ; Tehuty (O.) ;
Tahuti, &c.
Harmhab (R.) ; Haremheb (R.) ;
Harmhabi (R.) ; Horemheb ;
(H)armais (G.).
Hatshepsuit (R.) ; Hatshepsut
(O.) ; Hatshepsu, Hatshop-
situ, Chnemtamon, Hatasoo.
Hapusenb (O.) ; Hepuseneb (R.).
Anena (O.X.) ; Anna.
Khepera (O.) ; Khepra (O.), and
others.
Maat-ka-Ra (O.) ; Ra-Maat-Ka.
Menkheperraseneb (R.).
Men-Maat-Ra (O.) ; Ra-Maat-
Men ; Ra-men-Maat.
Menthuhotep (R.) ; Mentuhetep
(O.) ; Menthuhetep (O.).
1 It is quite likely that the D was pronounced T in the New
Kingdom, but the D is the more usually used transhteration.
APPENDIX
127
Monthu (R.)
Nefrurfe- (R.) . .
'OkheperkerS' (R.) .
Psammetikhos (G.)
Ra'- (unaccented) .
Ramesses (G.)
Ra'mose (R.)
Rekhmirfi' (R.)
RS' (in accented syllables)
Sennemut (R.)
Seti (O.)
Tut'ankhamun (R.)
Tuthmosis (G.)
Menthu (O.) ; (Her)month(is)
(G.) ; (Er)-mont (Copt) ; (Ar)-
mant (Arab).
Neferu-Ra (O.).
Aa-Kheper-Ka-Ra ; Ra-Aa-
Kheper-Ka.
Psamthek (R.) ; Psamtek (O.) ;
&c.
Ra.
Ramses (R.) ; Ramessu (O.) ;
Rameses (O.) ; Rhamsesis
(G.) ; Ramsasa, &c.
Rames (O.).
RakhmirS (R.) ; Rekhmara (O.).
Ra (O.) ; Re (Copt).
Senemut (R.) ; Senmut (O.).
Sethos (G). ; Sethoy (R.) ; Sety
(O.).
Tutenkhamon (R.) : Tutankh-
amen (O.), and many other
versions, some frivolous.
Thutmose (R.) ;
(R.) ; Tahutimes
Thutmosis.
Dhutmose
Thothmes ;
INDEX
(For various methods of transcribing Egyptian names,
see Appendix II)
Abandoning Aswan obelisk, reasons of, 22, 29.
'Abd El-Latif, 20. iii.
Abusir, sun-obelisks of, i8.
Accuracy of work in obelisks, 81.
Amasis II, transport under, 88.
Amenemhet III, expedition of, 85.
Amenophis II, small obelisk of, 79.
Amenophis III, barge of, 79.
— colonnades of, 82.
Anastasi Papyrus I, 70, 87, 89.
Architects, historical notes on :
— Beknekhonsu, 112.
■ — Dhutiy, 106.
— Fontana, Domenico, 109, 115.
— Gorringe, Lt.-Commr. H. H., 120.
— Ineni, 93.
— Lebas, 116.
— Menkheperra-sonb, 107, no.
— Pontius, III.
— Puimrd, 99, 106,
— Sennemut, 22, 99.
Assurbanipal II, 17.
Aswan obelisk :
— description of, 25.
— dimensions of, 25, 30.
— extraction of, 41.
— quarry-face near, 26, 43, 46.
— trench round, 41.
Balls of dolerite (see " Pounders ").
Barges for transporting obelisks, 60, 94, 117, 120, 121.
Bed of removed obelisk, 27, 49.
Beknekhonsu, architect, 112.
Benben{t), sacred, 19,
Bending stress, 75, 79.
Block-and -tackle (see System of pulleys).
Boats, ancient, 61, 79, 89, 94.
— loading obelisks on, 64.
— modern removals in, 117, 120, 121.
— paucity of data on, 61.
— troops used in unloading, 64.
— unloading obelisk from, 65.
128
INDEX 129
Boning-rods, 36.
Burning granite, 26, 33.
Calculations, ancient, 76, 89, 90.
Canal, statement by Pliny on, 88.
Caps, metal, to obelisks, 20.
Capstan, 66, 115, 117.
Centre lines, 29, 41.
Centre of gravity, 72, 75, 79.
Chisel-marks, 33, 38, 41.
Chisels, copper, 39.
Choisy's theory of erection of obelisks, 76.
Cleopatra's Needles (see London and New York obelisks).
Colonnade of Luxor Temple, 82.
Colossi, erection of, 76.
Compartments in brick ramp, 90.
Constantine the Great, transport under, no.
Constantinople obelisk, 18.
— history of, no.
Constantius, shipment of obelisk under, 109.
Copper chisels, 39.
— tempering of, 39.
Crabs, copper, under New York obelisk, in, n8.
Cracks in granite, ancient examination of, 28, 37.
Cubit, 28, 43.
— common, 43.
— royal Egyptian, 43.
Cutting granite, 39, 40.
Date of Aswan obelisk, 27.
Dates of Egyptian kings, 123.
Detaching obelisk from bed, 49.
Dhuthotpe, statue of, 58.
Dhutiy, alleged 108-cubit obelisks of, 76, 106.
— history of, 106.
Dimensions of obelisks, 30.
Dolerite balls (see " Pounders ").
Dragomans' tales, 91.
El-Bersheh, transport scene from, 58.
Electrum, 20, 79, 94, 97, 102.
Elephantine, obelisks from, 18.
Embankment at Aswan, 31, 70.
Embankments for erecting obelisks, 68.
Emery, 81.
Engineers (see Architects).
Engraving obelisks, 80.
Entasis, note on, 37.
Erection of colossi, note on, 76.
130 INDEX
Erection of obelisks :
— by direct raising, 67, 115, 116.
■ — ■ by embankment, 68.
— Choisy's method, 76.
— London method, 121.
— New York method, 118.
— Paris method, 116.
— probable Egyptian method, 69.
— at Seringapatam, 67.
[ — under " Rhamsesis," 91.
— Vatican method, 115.
Extraction of obelisks from quarry, 41.
" Feathers " for wedges, 34.
Finger, division of cubit, 43.
Fissures (see Cracks) .
Flagstaves, 20, 108, 113.
Fontana, Domenico ; architect, 109, 115.
Foot ; measure, 43, 47, 49.
Friction of sled, 57, 58.
" Funnel " for erecting obelisks, 69,
GoRRiNGE, Lt.-Commr. H. H., 120.
Guide-lines for masons, 38.
Gum, acacia, 41.
Hammammat, quarries of, 85.
Hammer-dressing, 36, 80.
Hammer, granite, from Gizeh, 34.
Handling-loops on ropes, 56.
Hatshepsowet, Queen :
— inscription of, 102.
— obelisk of, on sled, 57.
— obelisks of. Frontispiece, 17, 29, 30, 48, 60, 67, 72, 79, 98,
— relations with Tuthmosis III, 64, 93, 95, 97, 105.
— transport scenes of, 37, 61, 63.
Heliopolis, obelisks at, 17, 18, 20, 37, no, iii.
Henufer, mother of Sennemut, 10 1.
Herodotus, record by, 88.
Hieratic inscriptions, 46, 47, 51.
Hog-frame (see Queen-truss).
Hophra, king, 113.
Hori, the scribe, 87.
Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, attribution of, 82.
Ineni ; architect, history of, 93.
Inscriptions :
— from architects' tombs and statues, 92.
■ — Greek and Latin of Pontius, in.
INDEX 131
Inscriptions (cont.) :
— Greek visitors', near Aswan obelisk, 31.
— on bed of small obelisk at Aswan, 50.
— on obelisks, 92, 96.
— on pedestal of Hatshepsdwet's obelisk, 102.
— on potsherd, 51,
— on upper quarry-face, Aswan, 46, 47.
Iron, preservation of, 40.
— wedges, 34, 35.
Karnak obelisks :
— of Pylon III, 82.
— of Pylon IV, 74, 93.
— of Pylon VII, 29, 74, 107.
— of Pylon VIII. 108.
Lateran obelisk, 27, 29, 30, 107.
— architect of, 108.
— history of, 108.
Lebas ; architect, 116.
Length of Aswan obelisk, 25, 30.
Levers, for " rocking " obelisk, 54.
— found in excavations, 56.
— raising obelisk by, 66, 67.
Lines, guide, 25, 29, 38, 41.
— measuring, on Aswan obeUsk, 43, 45.
London obelisk :
— history of, no, 121.
— modern removal of, 121.
Luxor obeUsk :
— architect of, 112.
— history of, 112.
Mataria obelisk, 17, 30, 37, in.
Menkheperra-sonb, 107, no.
Menthuhotpe IV, expedition under, 85.
Mindalah, 44.
Model of embankment, 70.
Models, ancient, 79.
Modern removals of obelisks, 114.
Monthu, temple of, at Karnak, 83.
New York obelisk :
— copper crabs under, in, 118.
— history of, no, 117.
— modern removal of, 117.
— Pontius's erection of, in.
Nineveh, transport of bull at, 56.
Notch in obelisk pedestals, 67, 68, 72, 73.
132 INDEX
Obelisk-engineers (see Architects).
Old Kingdom obelisks, 17, 18.
Palm ; measure, 43.
Palm rope, 56.
Paris obelisk :
— architect of, 112.
— modern removal of, ii6.
— notes on friction of " cradle," 58.
Philae, obelisks at, 18.
Pliny, record of, 88.
Pontius; architect, 11 1.
" Pounders " of dolerite, 30, 36, 38, 42, 50, 80.
— broken by blows, 42.
— pits made in granite by, 42, 45.
— rate of work using, 48.
— shod on to rammers, 42, 44.
— trench round Aswan obelisk made by, 41.
— wear on, 42,
— weight of, 42.
Psammetikhos, king, 113.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, transport under, 88.
Puimre ; architect, 99, 106.
Quarries, 22.
— reason why neglected, 24.
Quarry-face near Aswan obelisk, 26, 46.
" Queen-truss " on boats, 63.
Ramesses I, 83.
Ramesses II :
— obelisks of, 18, 112, 116.
— usurpations by, 11 1 .
Ramesses IV :
— expedition under, 86.
— usurpation by, 96.
Ramesses VI, usurpation by, 96.
Ramesses-nakht, Director of Works, 86.
Rammers, 42, 44.
Ramose, father of Sennemut, loi.
— tomb at Thebes, 19.
Rate of work when pounding granite, 48.
Records of ancient workmen, 46.
Regnal year, 49, 104.
Rollers, ancient, 58.
— for transporting obelisk, 58.
— size of, 60.
Rolling obelisk out of quarry, 55.
INDEX 133
Rome, obelisks at, 18, 108, 109, 115.
— (see also Lateran and Vatican obelisks).
Ropes :
• — handling-loops to, 56.
— size of, 56.
Rusting of iron, 40.
Sand :
— packing obelisk with, 55.
— used in erecting colossi, 89.
— used in erecting obelisks, 6g.
Sarcophagi, unfinished, 23.
Sawing granite, 81.
Scale models :
— ancient, 79.
— used for illustrations, 70, 116, 118.
Senmen, brother of Sennemut, loi.
Sennemut ; architect, 22, 99.
Senusret I, obelisk of, 17, 18, 30, iii.
Seringapatam obelisk, 67.
Seti I, king, 109.
— model temple of, 80.
■ — • works of, 18, 84.
Seti II, obelisk of, 17.
Setting out an obelisk, 32.
Sheers, 66, 116.
Shock-absorbers, 58, 74, 76.
Single obelisk erected, 108, 109.
Sleds, 57, 60, 70.
Slot in obelisk pedestals, 67, 68, 72, 73.
Soldiers used in transport work, 64, 86.
Soleb Temple, obelisks at, 18.
" Spanish windlass," 57.
Statues of architects, 92, 99, loi, 107, 112.
Steel, not known to Egyptians, 39.
Stress due to weight of obelisk, 75.
Sun-obelisks, 19.
Surface-dressing, 36, 80.
Surface-testing :
— by boning-rods, 36.
— fine, by flat plane and ochre, 80.
Systems of pulleys :
— in modern erections, 115, 116.
— unknown to Egyptians, 66.
Tanis, obelisks at, 18.
Tempering of copper, 39.
Test-shafts, 32, 35.
Transliteration of Egyptian names, 10, 125.
134 INDEX
Tutankhamun, negative evidence of, 82.
Tuthmosid succession, notes on, 97.
Tuthmdsis I, obelisks of, at Karnak, Frontispiece, 61, 75, 93,
96, 107.
Tuthmdsis II, 95, 97,
Tuthmosis III :
— obelisks of, 27, 74, 75, 107, no, in, 117, 121.
— reigns before Tuthmosis II, 97.
— • relations with Queen Hatshepsowet, 64, 93, 95, 97, 105.
Tuthmosis IV puts up Tuthmosis Ill's obeUsk, io8.
" Undercutting " obelisks in quarry, 49.
Vocalisations of Egyptian words, 10, 125;
Wedges, 23, 33.
Weights of obelisks, 30.
Work:
■ — ancient arrangement of, 44,
— by piece and not by time, 45.
— method of measuring, 46.
Printed in Great Britain by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld.,
London and Aylesbury.
HneArts
miiaiiiiiiiimmiin
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11